The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/S Swaranbhumi Forest (India) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.106 of 2009 (O&M)Date of decision: 10.8.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh. -----Appellant Vs. M/s Swaranbhumi Forest (India) Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1.The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) againstthe order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’passed in I.T.A. Nos.543 and 544/Chandi/2002 dated 25.5.2005for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe ITAT has erred in holding that the Ld. CIT(A) wasjustified in reducing the penalty levied by the A.O.considering the default as one and not the defaultcommitted in respect of each certificate inspite of thewords used in Section 272-A(2)(g) according to whichif any person fails to furnish acertificate as requiredby section 203 or section 206 C, he shall pay, by wayof penalty, a sum of 100/- rupees for every day duringwhichthe failurecontinue?” 2. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings forpenalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act on the ground thatthe assessee delayed the issuance of TDS certificates. Afterconsidering the stand of the assessee, penalty was levied. TheCIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding thatthe violation being technical in nature, penalty could not be leviedby treating the default separately for each employee. TheTribunal upheld the said view. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The assessee admittedly issued the requisitecertificate under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The default, ifany, does not result in evasion of tax. In these circumstances,there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Nosubstantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 10, 2009CHAUDHARY )ashwani ( JUDGE DAYA