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. 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 2