Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
1. Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, holding brief of Sri J.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Ghanshyam Chaudhary, holding brief of Sri D.D. Chopra learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short the Act), has been preferred with regard to penalty imposed for an amount of Rs.4,84,610.00 by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A (2) (g) of the Act for the Assessment Year 1999-2000.
3. The assessee Corporation was engaged in construction work of Government building during the assessment year in question. The assessee Corporation made payments to contractors against the work done by them. In view of the provisions under Section 194C/203 of the Act read with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (In short the Rules), the assessee Corporation was required to issue TDS certificates in respect of the TDS deducted. The TDS certificates were to be issued to the contractors within one month from the end of the month during which the credit was given or the payment was made. On the verification of the return of the assessee Corporation for the [2] Financial Year 1988-89, it was found that the TDS certificates were not issued within prescribed time. There were 41 contractors to whom said certificates were issued at belated stage. On account of non-compliance of provisions contained under Section 194C/203 of the Act read with Rule 31 (3) of Income Tax Act Rules, the Deputy CIT, Income Tax TDS Circle, Kanpur, made reference to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4 for initiating proceeding for imposition of penalty under Section 272A (2) (g) of the Act, by an order dated 22.6.2000. In consequence thereof, the Joint CIT issued show cause notice to the assessee requiring it to explain why penalty under Section 272A (2) (g) of the Act for an amount of Rs.6,29,500.00 may not be imposed .
4. The assessee Corporation took a plea that the assessee was not aware with regard to delayed deduction of TDS. The assessee took the plea that he was not aware of the relevant legal provisions relating to issuance of TDS certificate. The alternative plea was that the contractors requested for consolidated form No.16-A and, therefore, consolidated certificates issued according to provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules. The Joint Commissioner after providing due opportunity, found that the delay caused occasioned to impose penalty. It was noticed by the Joint Commissioner that the TDS certificates were not only signed late but the same were not furnished and were kept by the assessee Corporation. According to the Joint Commissioner, in 21 cases, the certificates were not [3] despatched even until 9.1.2001 when the assessee was heard during the course of penalty proceeding. In view of these facts, the Joint Commissioner recorded finding that the assessee has acted in total disregard of legal provisions relating to furnishing of TDS certificates. Accordingly, penalty was imposed. Being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred before the CIT. (Appeal).
5. The appellate authority upheld the order passed by the assessing authority. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal against the order of the appellate authority and the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A). The concurrent finding have been recorded by all the three forums. It has been observed that there has been serious misconduct and slackness on the part of the Officers concerned. They have not only shown disregard to statutory provisions and statutory obligations but also they have acted unfairly while discharging their obligations. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal shows that there is collusive act on the part of the parties in not discharging their obligation with regard to statutory provisions.
6. Though, appeal was admitted by this Court on substantial questions of law framed at serial No.A and B but while admitting the appeal, the Court itself has not framed any question of law which is mandatory in view of the provisions contained in Section 260A of the Act.
7. However, it has been stated that in case, the delay caused is bona fide, then no penalty could have been imposed under [4] Section 272-A (2) (g) of the Act. Of course, a bona fide action in ordinary course, does not call for imposition of penalty under the statutory provisions. The questions of law framed by the appellant, could have been helpful in case a finding of fact would have been recorded with regard to bona fide action on the part of the appellant. In absence of finding with regard to bona fide and the involvement of serious misconduct or collusive act, the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer, suffers from no infirmity or illegality. The defence taken by the appellant that they were not aware of statutory provisions, does not seem to inspire confidence. The assessee appellant which is a Corporation, constituted under the statutory provisions, is not expected to act like rustic or illiterate persons, who have no knowledge of statutory duties. Otherwise also, in ordinary course, the ignorance of law, is not an excuse. Being a Corporation, which has a battery of lawyers for assistance and skilled persons, it is always expected that it shall discharge its obligations within time framed provided by the acts or statutes.
8. Moreover, there is one another aspect of the matter. Once, the finding of fact has been recorded that the action of the appellant or its authorities was collusive or suffers from serious slackness in discharge of duties and statutory obligation or deliberate attempt on their part to conceal material facts, then such finding of fact is not open to review or re-appreciation of evidence by this Court in pursuance of powers conferred by Section 260-A of the Act. It is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the [5] evidence or the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal or appellate authorities below while exercising jurisdiction conferred by Section 260-A of the Act. The substantial questions of law framed by the Court itself, may be looked into by exercising power concerned by Section 260-A of the Act.
9. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 Rajneesh)