The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Swaranbhumi Forest (India) … on 10 August, 2009

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH.

                                      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 GOEL
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:-   Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel
            for the appellant.
                  -----
ORDER:

1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against

the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’

passed in I.T.A. Nos.543 and 544/Chandi/2002 dated 25.5.2005

for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise following

substantial question of law:-

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
the ITAT has erred in holding that the Ld. CIT(A) was
justified in reducing the penalty levied by the A.O.
considering the default as one and not the default
committed in respect of each certificate inspite of the
words used in Section 272-A(2)(g) according to which
if any person fails to furnish a certificate as required
by section 203 or section 206 C, he shall pay, by way
of penalty, a sum of 100/- rupees for every day during
which the failure continue?”

ITA No.106 of 2009 2

2. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for

penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act on the ground that

the assessee delayed the issuance of TDS certificates. After

considering the stand of the assessee, penalty was levied. The

CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that

the violation being technical in nature, penalty could not be levied

by treating the default separately for each employee. The

Tribunal upheld the said view.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The assessee admittedly issued the requisite

certificate under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The default, if

any, does not result in evasion of tax. In these circumstances,

there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. No

substantial question of law arises.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

                                         (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                 JUDGE


August 10, 2009                                  (               DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani                                                JUDGE