ROYAL METAL PRINTERS P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI

ITA 6840/MUM/2008 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 684019914 RSA 2008
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6840/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ROYAL METAL PRINTERS P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 29-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-11-2009
Next Hearing Date 16-11-2009
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 01-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.L.GEHLOT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 6840/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 M/S. ROYAL METAL PRINTERS PVT. LTD. MUMBAI 400 002. PAN AAACR-1935-N VS. ADDL. CIT (TDS) RANGE 3 MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI SANDEEP JAIN (SR. A.R.) ORDER PER D.MANMOHAN V.P. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE- COMPANY AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -2008. PENALTY OF RS.1 13 888/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 272A (2) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SO URCE AND DEPOSITED THE SAME WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED UNDER T HE ACT. HOWEVER TDS RETURNS IN FORM 26Q AND FORM 24Q REFERABLE TO FOUR QUARTERS ENDING ON 15-7-2006 15-10-2006 15-1-2007 AND 15-6 -2007 RESPECTIVELY WERE FILED BELATEDLY. FORM 26Q TDS RE TURNS WERE IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM WHICH WERE FILED ON 30-6-2007 WHER EAS UNDER FORM 24Q RETURNS WERE FILED ON 10-7-2007 RESULTING IN SU BSTANTIAL DELAY FOR EACH QUARTER. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE PROVISIONS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE QUARTERLY RETURNS WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE END OF THE QUARTER WHEREAS ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ANNUAL RETURN HAS TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 15-6-2007 BUT FILED THE QU ARTERLY RETURNS FOR ALL THE FOUR QUARTERS REFERABLE TO FORM 26Q AND 24Q O N 30-6-2007 AND 2 10-7-2007 RESPECTIVELY. SO FAR AS FORM 26Q IS CONCE RNED THE DELAY WITH REGARD TO FIRST QUARTER WORKS OUT TO 372 DAYS SECOND QUARTER BY 280 DAYS THIRD QUARTER BY 188 DAYS AND FOR THE 4 TH QUARTER THERE WAS DELAY OF 37 DAYS. SIMILARLY UNDER FORM 24Q QUARTERL Y RETURNS WERE DELAYED AND FOR THE FIRST QUARTER IT WAS LATE BY 38 2 DAYS SECOND QUARTER BY 290 DAYS THIRD QUARTER BY 198 DAYS AND FOR 4 TH QUARTER BY 47 DAYS. FOR THE TOTAL DELAY OF 877 DAYS IN FILING FORM 26Q AND 917 DAYS WITH REGARD TO FORM 24Q THE PENALTY @ RS.100/ - PER DAY WORKS OUT TO RS.87 700/- AND RS.91 700/- RESPECTIVELY WH EREAS THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BEING LESS THAN THE AFOREMENTION ED FIGURES PENALTY WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.35 661/- AND RS.78 227/- RESPE CTIVELY RESULTING IN LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1 13 888/- UNDER SECTION 2 72A (2) (C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) WAS THAT IT WAS A VENIAL DEFAUL T FOR WHICH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. EXPLAI NING FURTHER IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULAR IN DE DUCTING TAX AND ALSO PAYING THE SAME. ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF PROCE DURE OF FILING THE TDS RETURNS QUARTERLY CONTRARY TO THE OLD CONCEPT OF FILING THE ANNUAL RETURNS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE RETURNS HAVE TO BE FILED ANNUALLY WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CAUS ES FOR THE DELAY IN FILING QUARTERLY RETURNS. THAT APART THE COMPANY H AD EMPLOYED A PART TIME ACCOUNTANT WHO LEFT THE JOB AND THE ASSESSEE H AVING NOT BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH THE FILING OF RETURNS ELECTRONICALL Y ASSIGNED THE JOB OF FILING OF RETURNS TO A THIRD PARTY WHICH ALSO CONTR IBUTED TO THE DELAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) REJECT ED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE IG NORANCE ABOUT THE CHANGES MADE UNDER THE ACT WITH REGARD TO FILING OF QUARTERLY RETURNS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETU RNS SINCE A CITIZEN CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE OF LAW. HE THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE PENA LTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 4. FURTHER AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE AND PAYING THE SAME ON TIME PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO IN TENTION TO DISREGARD THE PROVISIONS OF LAW BUT FOR THE MERE IG NORANCE OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE COME INTO EFFECT ONLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTANT IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE O THER FACTORS WOULD GIVE SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A REASONABLE CAUSE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE OF THE PROCEDURE OF FILING THE RETURNS IN ELECTRONIC FORM AND THUS HAD TO ASSIGN THE JOB TO A THIRD PARTY SOON AFTER REALIZING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE. HAD THE ASSE SSEE BEEN AWARE OF THE CORRECT PROCEDURE ATLEAST ONE OF THE QUARTERLY RETURNS WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED THOUGH BELATED BEFORE THE REGULAR DUE DATE FOR FILING THE ANNUAL RETURNS AS PER THE OLD PROVISIONS. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY COMPLYI NG WITH THE PROCEDURES UNDER THE ACT IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS W OULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A RISK OF FILING THE QUARTERLY RETURNS BELATEDLY TO INVITE PUNITIVE ACTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE AND THIS IN ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER TH E BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE RETURNS HAVE TO BE FILED ANNUALLY. PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT CIT VS. DY. HOUSING COMMISSIONER 177 CTR 591 CIT VS. SUPERINTE NDING ENGINEER 260 ITR 641 THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A (2) (C) OF ACT SHOULD BE LEVIED IN CASE OF WANTON NEGLIGENCE BUT N OT ON ASSESSEES WHO ARE IGNORANT OF THE PROVISIONS PARTICULARLY WH EN THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISION WHICH WAS NOT INFORMED B Y THE TAX AUTHORITIES. IN OTHER WORDS WHEN THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE FIRST QUARTERLY RETURN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HA VE ISSUED A NOTICE OR INFORMED THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SUCH ACTION WAS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OCCA SION TO REALISE THE 4 MISTAKE STEMMING OUT OF IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HE THUS STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. 83 ITR 26 PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSABLE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 5. SINCE THE BENCH NOTICED THAT THE PROCEDURE OF F ILING QUARTERLY RETURNS WAS APPLICABLE EVEN FOR THE PRECE DING YEAR TO SEEK CLARIFICATIONS AS TO THE DATES OF FILING QUARTERLY RETURNS FOR THE EARLIER YEAR APPEAL WAS REFIXED. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 23 PAGES (IN CLUDING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) AND BY ADVERTING OUR ATTENTION TO THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS RELATABLE TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-200 6 (REFERABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EV EN FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORAN T OF THE PROVISIONS AND THE QUARTERLY RETURNS EVEN FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD WERE FILED BELATEDLY (ALONG WITH THE BELATED QUARTERLY R ETURNS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION) BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CHOOSE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SAID YEAR. THE REFORE IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING TH E QUARTERLY RETURNS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-2006 WERE ACCEPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDE R OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CREST COMMUNICATION LTD . 106 ITD 558 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF FA ILURE TO FURNISH QUARTERLY STATEMENTS THE DEFAULT WOULD FALL UNDER S ECTION 200 (3) OF THE ACT IN WHICH EVENT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED UND ER SECTION 272A (2) (C) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APP LIED THE WRONG PROVISIONS PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE SET ASI DE. BY PLACING STRONG RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT (SUPRA) IT W AS CONTENDED THAT FAILURE TO FURNISH ANNUAL RETURNS WOULD ATTRACT PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 272A (2) (C) OF THE ACT WHEREAS FAILURE TO FURNISH QUARTERLY TDS RETURNS IN TERMS OF RULE 37A WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 272A(2) (C). 5 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILI NG THE QUARTERLY RETURNS AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PLEAD IGNORANCE OF LAW AS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND IN THIS REGARD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARASWA TI ELECTRONICS VS. ITO 292 ITR 411. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDG MENTS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUIS HABLE ON FACTS. THE COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE DEFAULT BY A GOVER NMENT BODY IN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE OF LAW AND THUS CANCELLED PENALTY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE HON BLE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE EVOLVED A METH OD OF ADVISING THE HEAD OF OFFICE BY WAY OF NOTICE OR REMINDER PROVIDI NG AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS AS OTHERWISE PENALTY SH OULD NOT NORMALLY BE LEVIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS AND HAD THE BENEFIT OF ADVICE OF TAX PROFESSIONALS APART FROM ENGAGING AN ACCOUNTANT IN THE OFFICE AND HENCE THE COMPANY C ANNOT PLEAD IGNORANCE OF LAW. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY IS OTHERWISE LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 272A (2)(K) OF THE ACT AND T HUS MERE WRONG REFERENCE TO A PROVISION SHOULD NOT VITIATE THE PRO CEEDINGS SINCE SUCH TECHNICAL DEFAULTS ARE SAVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 292B OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAYMENT WAS MADE/DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT AND THE RETURNS UNDER FORM 26Q AS WELL AS 24Q WERE FILED WITH A MARGINAL DELAY RECKONED FROM THE DUE DATE FOR FILI NG THE REGULAR RETURNS AS PER THE OLD PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR ALSO THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE QUARTERLY STATEMENTS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 6 8. SECTION 273B OF THE ACT PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION T O THE RIGID PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A OF THE ACT BY PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ASSESSEE PROVING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FA ILURE PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GAYATRI TRADERS THE ITAT HYDERABAD SPECIAL BENCH ( 1996) 58 ITD 121 WHILE EXPLAINING THE EXPRESSION REASONABLE C AUSE UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT OBSERVED IN PARA 25 AS UNDER : LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B IS NEITHER MANDATORY NOR A MUST. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 271B PROVIDES THAT IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO GET HIS A CCOUNTS AUDITED OR OBTAIN A REPORT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTIO N 44AB THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH P ERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY. THE USE OF THE WORDS MAY DIRECT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS VESTED WITH THE DISCRETION EITHER TO IMPOSE OR NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTY DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. NO DOUBT IT IS TRUE TH E SAID DISCRETION SHOULD BE EXERECISED JUDICIALLY AND NOT EITHER ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. WHEN THERE IS A TECHNI CAL OR MINOR BREACH OF THE LAW THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIR E THAT THE DISCRETION SHOULD NOT BE EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF PUNISHING A VENIAL DEFAULT. FURTHER IT IS NOT AS T HOUGH THE MOMENT A DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 44AB IS COMMITTE D THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B IS AUTOMATIC . THE WORDS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE THAT EXISTED IN SE CTION 271B AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IMPORTANT. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABL E TO SHOW A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY W ITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 44AB BEFORE THE DUE DAT E NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271B. WHAT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN A GIVEN SET OF FACTS DEPENDS UPON 7 THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THAT CASE. A CAUSE WHICH A REASONABLE MAN ACCEPTS IT AS A REASONABLE ONE CAN B E TAKEN AS A REASONABLE CAUSE. THE EXPRESSION REASON ABLE CAUSE REQUIRES TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN A FA IR AND REASONABLE MANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUS TICE SINCE HARSH LEGALISTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MITIGATED BY SOFT PRACTICAL APPROACH IN APPLYING PENAL PROVISION S. 9. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ORDINARILY AN ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO KNOW THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE BUT IN THE EVENT OF MAKING A CLAIM OF IGNORANCE OF LAW IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO EXAMINE T HE PLEA JUDICIOUSLY KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WHO HAS DEDU CTED TAX AND DEPOSITED THE SAME WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME COULD HAVE NORMALLY BEEN SAID TO BE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN/ASSESSEE AND THE DELAY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT ORDINARILY BE ATTRIBUTAB LE TO WANTON NEGLIGENCE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PENALTY LEVIABLE CAN BE EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX DEDUCTED OR DEDUCTIBLE. IN THE CASE OF MOTI LAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS (1979) 118 ITR 326 THE APEX COURT OBSERVED AT PAGE 339 OF THE REPORT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HENCE THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVERYONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LA W IS NOT APPLICABLE UNIVERSALLY SINCE IT IS OF A VERY DIFFER ENT SCOPE AND APPLICATION. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF WTO VS. JAYAK UMAR (S.P.) (1983) 3 ITD 221 THE ITAT MADRAS BENCH OBSERVED AT PARA 6 OF THE JUDGMENT AS UNDER : THAT THE TAX LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED AND OFTEN REQUIRE FOR COMPLIANCE THERE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF TAX PRACTITIONERS SPECIALIZING IN THI S FIELD IS A WELL KNOWN FACT. IT IS EQUALLY WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD UNDERGOES SO FREQUENT CHA NGES AND AMENDMENT THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR EVEN A PERSON SPECIALIZING IN THIS FIELD INCLUDING THE TAX ADMIN ISTRATOR TO CLAIM THAT HE KNOWS WHAT EXACTLY THE LAW IS ON A PA RTICULAR 8 GIVEN DAY OR PERIOD WITHOUT MAKING REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ENACTMENTS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE KNEW OR OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THE CORRECT LAW AND COMPLY THEREWITH EVEN THOUGH IN FACT HE WAS NOT AWARE O F THE PROVISIONS. 10. BEARING IN MIND THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURNS EVEN IF THEY ARE CHARACTERIZED AS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF LAW FOR WHICH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AUTOMATICALLY. THE CONSISTENT STAND OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN THE EA RLIER YEARS AND THE DEFAULT IN THIS YEAR WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND EVEN FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE RE WAS A DELAY IN FILING QUARTERLY RETURNS (FILED ALONG WITH THIS YEA RS QUARTERLY RETURNS) WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. UNDER THES E CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IS SUPPORTED BY R EASONABLE CAUSE AND HENCE WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 272A (2) (C) OF THE ACT. 11. EVEN OTHERWISE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION O F THE ITAT BOMBAY BENCH (SUPRA) NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER S ECTION 272A (2) (C) OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO FILE QUARTERLY RETURNS OF TDS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (A.L.GEHLOT) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI 29 TH JANUARY 2010 VBP/- 9 COPY TO 1. M/S. ROYAL METAL PRINTERS PVT. LTD. 134/136 ZAV ERI BAZAR 1 ST FLOOR MUMBAI 400 002 PAN AAACR-1935-N 2. ADDL. CIT (TDS) RANGE-3 MUMBAI. 3. CIT (A)-XXX MUMBAI. 4. CIT (TDS) MUMBAI. 5. D.R. D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. SNO DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 29-01-2010 SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29-01-2010 SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER V.P. 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER A.M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER