Anil Kumar Sushil Kumar Goel, ... vs Assessee

Anil Kumar Sushil Kumar Goel, Vs The ITO ( TDS), Saharanpur Road, Sector 2, Yamuna Nag ar. Panchkula.

PAN: AAYPG0708M

&

ITA No. 729/CHD/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10

Inderjeet Poultry Farm, Vs The ITO ( TDS), VPO, Aurangabad, Sector 2, Yamuna Nag ar. Panchkula.

PAN: RTKI00554B

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal

Date of Hearing : 31.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2015

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

Both the appeals by different assessees are directed

against the order of ld. CI T(Appeals) Karnal dated 03.01.2014

for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the levy of penalty

under section 272B of the Income Tax Act.

2

2. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties and

perused the material on record. It is stated that issue is same

in both the appeals. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of

both the appeals, the facts are taken from ITA 728/CHD/2014.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that as per sub-section

(5B) of Section 139A of the Act, the deductor is required to

specify the PANs of deductees in the quarterly TDS return filed

on the system. In case of failure to give correct PAN numbers,

penalty under section 272B may be levied. On processing the

e-TDS quarterly statement of deduction of tax in form No. 27EQ

for the assessment year in appeal filed on 14.07.2008, it was

noticed that in contravention of provisions of Section 139A of

the Act, PAN details of 12 out of 30 deductees were found to be

invalid/missing. The Assessing Officer vide separate order

levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272B of the

Act. The assessee challenged the penalty order before ld.

CIT(Appeals) and raised many pleas including the submission

that assessee has revised return and has corrected the defect,

if any. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, dismissed appeal of the

Act.

4. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the

similar circumstances, ITAT Chandigarh 'A' Bench in ITA Nos.

564 to 567/CHD/2014 in the case of Ashok Kumar Arun Kumar

Goel Vs ITO, Panchkula and ITA 568/CHD/2014 in the case of

Ashok Kumar Goel Vs I TO, Panchkula vide order dated

10.09.2014 restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer

to verify the claim of assessee for filing the correction 3

statement on the matter and issue. The findings in this order

in para 10 to 13 are reproduced as under :

"10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act. The assessee had furnished e-TDS quarterly statement relating to assessment year 2009-10 and in the said statement for quarter No.3, the Assessing Officer noted that there was default in quoting of the PAN numbers. The assessee had failed to furnish the correct PAN numbers of deductees totaling 3 tax deductees in quarter No.3 The assessee claimed that it had corrected all the PAN numbers of the tax deductees relating to quarter No.3 for financial year 2008-09, however the CIT(A) rejected the claim of assessee as no proof was filed. The assessee on the other hand claims that it had furnished correction statement before the passing of order of CIT(A), which has not been taken cognizance of and levy of penalty confirm.

11. We are of the view that in case the assessee had furnished correct PAN numbers of all the tax deductees, then the assessee is not liable to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act but in case the assessee had failed to correct the PAN numbers of even one deductee, then the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act. The claim of the assessee has not been verified by the authorities below and in all fairness, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee vis-à-vis the correction statement filed. If the same is found to be correct, then no penalty is leviable under section 272B of the Act for quarter No.3 of financial year 2008-09. In case the assessee had defaulted in correcting any one PAN number of any of the tax deductees then the assessee is liable to levy of penalty under section 272B of the Act at Rs.10,000/- for each of the quarters. The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue in line with our directions. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed for statistical purpose.

12. The facts & issue in ITA Nos. 565 to 568/Chd/2014 are identical to facts in ITA No. 564/Chd/2014 and our decision in ITA Nos. 564 to 568/Chd/2014 would apply mutatis-mutandis to ITA Nos. 565 to 568/Chd/2014 also.

1 3 . In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 564 to 568/Chd/2014 are allowed for statistical purposes."

4 5. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the order

of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Arun Kumar Goel

(supra), we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore

the matter and issue to the file of Assessing Officer with

direction to verify the claim of assessee regarding filing of the

correction statement who shall re-decide the matter accordingly

by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being herd to the

assessee as is directed in the case of Ashok Kumar Arun Kumar

Goel (supra).

6. It is stated that facts are same in the case of other appeal

in ITA 729/CHD/2014 in the case of Inderjeet Poultry Farm.

The order in the case of Anil Kumar Sushil Kumar Goel shall

apply in this case as well.

7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31 s t March,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31 s t March,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR

Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh