The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd
High Court
26 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
26 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: It has further come out on record that TDS certificates were sent by speed post on 25.3.2004. is as under : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.
Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his reasoned order set aside the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Ashapura Garments Pvt. Ltd.... Respondent
Mr.A.D. Kango for the Appellant.
Mr. S.G. Dalal for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.DATED: JUNE 26, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JUNE 26, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F.I. Rebello,J.) :
. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the
order of ITAT dated 7.5.2007 whereby the appeal
preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed and the
order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his reasoned order set aside the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act. The facts on
record would indicate that the amount was paid into
Government Account on 1st March and 6th March, 2004.
The TDS certificates were immediately issued on 2nd
March and 7th March, 2004. Admittedly, TDS amount
was not paid in time. The Commissioner (Appeals)
held that it was on account of financial constraint.
We are not concerned with the said issue in the
present appeal as failure to pay on due date results
in different consequences. It has further come out
on record that TDS certificates were sent by speed
post on 25.3.2004.
is as under :
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in deleting
the penalty levied u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the
Income Tax Act?"
. The other question framed in our opinion, need
not be answered as answering the question framed
would dispose of the appeal.
4. Section 272A(2)(g) reads as under :
"272A. (1) If any person ...........
(a).............
(b)..........
(c) .......
(d) .......
(2)If any person fails - .........
(g) to furnish a certificate as required by
Section 203 (or Section 206C); or.........
..................
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of
one hundred rupees for every day during
which the failure continues.
Provided that the amount of penalty for
failures in relation to a declaration
mentioned in section 1979A, a certificate as
required by section 203 and returns under
Sections 206 and 206C, and statements under
sub section (3) of section 200 or the
proviso to sub section (3) of section 206C
shall not exceed the amount of tax
deductible or collectable, as the case may
be."
. Section 203 (1) and (2) reads as under :
(1) Every person deducting tax in accordance
with the foregoing provisions of this
Chapter shall within such period, as may be
prescribed from the time of credit or
payment of the sum, or, as the case may be,
from the time of issue of a cheque or
warrant for payment of any dividend to a
shareholder, furnish to the person to whose
furnish to the person to whoseaccount such credit is given or to whom sucha certificate to the effect that taxhas been deducted, and specifying the amount
account such credit is given
payment is made or the cheque or warrant is
issued, a certificate to the effect that tax
has been deducted,
so deducted, the rate at which the tax has
been deducted and such other particulars as
may be prescribed. (Emphasis supplied).
(2) Every person, being an employer,
referred to in sub section (1A) of section
192 shall, within such period, as may be
prescribed, furnish to the person in respect
of whose income such payment of tax has been
made, a certificate to the effect that tax
has been paid to the Central Government, and
specify the amount so paid, the rate at
which the tax has been paid and such other
particulars as may be prescribed."
5. A joint perusal therefore, of Section 272A(2)(g)
and Section 203(1) indicates that the penalty can be
imposed if certificate of deduction is not issued
within the time as may be prescribed. This is the
has been deducted,
so deducted, the rate at which the tax has
been deducted and such other particulars as
may be prescribed. (Emphasis supplied).
(2) Every person, being an employer,
referred to in sub section (1A) of section
192 shall, within such period, as may be
prescribed, furnish to the person in respect
of whose income such payment of tax has been
made, a certificate to the effect that tax
has been paid to the Central Government, and
specify the amount so paid, the rate at
which the tax has been paid and such other
particulars as may be prescribed."
5. A joint perusal therefore, of Section 272A(2)(g)
and Section 203(1) indicates that the penalty can be
imposed if certificate of deduction is not issued
within the time as may be prescribed. This is the
only requirement and that would depend on the facts
of each case.
. Rule 31 is the relevant rule requiring issuance
of certificate. The first proviso to that rule sets
out that in the cases like instant case, the
certificate under sub rule (1) shall be issued
within a week after the expiry of two months from
the month income is so credited. We are not
concerned with the further provisos.
6. As noted earlier and on the finding of fact
recorded by the authorities below, on the tax being
deducted and deposited with the Government treasury,
the TDS certificates were sent to the persons
entitled to by speed post on the very next dates.
In other words, there has been compliance of the
mandatory requirements of the section. Once there
has been compliance of section 203 read with rules,
no penalty could have been imposed considering the
language of Section 272A(2)(g). The authorities
below, therefore, acted without jurisdiction in
setting aside the penalty.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.