Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Jubilee Sports India Technology Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 31 March, 2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH "D" NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI. PRAMOD KUMAR ITA No. 1409/Del/2013 Asst. Yr: 200809 ITA No. 1410/Del/2013 Asst. Yr: 201112 ITA No.1415/Del/2013 Asst. Yr: 201011 Incometax Officer, vs. Jubilee Sports India Ward 50(2), Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. S518, Lower Ground Floor, Gr. Kailash, PartI, New Delhi. (PAN: DELJO6663G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri P. Damkaunjma, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Sanjay Jain, CA Date of hearing : 28.01.2015 Date of pronouncement: 31:03.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revenue has questioned First Appellate Order on the following common ground: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in: (i) Restricting the penalty imposed u/s.272A(k) of Rs.20,50,700 to Rs.6,37,800 relying on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Superintendent Engineer (260 ITR 641), wherein the assessee has deducted the tax and made the payment into Govt. account in time. In this case, the assessee 2 has not deposited the tax in some cases. Therefore, the facts of the case are different from the case of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Further, the AR of the assessee already accepted before the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the penalty should have been limited to Rs.13,95,034." 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in providing sports infrastructure to various governments and nongovernment clients. During the financial years 200809 to 201011, the assessee had undertaken certain projects of common wealth games. In the assessment years under consideration i.e. assessment years 200809, 201011 and 2011 12, the Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty of Rs.20,50,700 under sec. 272A(2)(k)/274 of the Incometax Act, 1961 for delay in filing statements of different quarters for the financial years relevant to the assessment years under consideration. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the penalty which has been questioned by the Revenue before the ITAT. 3 4. In support of the ground, the learned Sr.DR has placed reliance on penalty order. He submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Superintendent Engineer 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) is not applicable in the case of the assessee as in that case the assessee had deducted the tax and made the payment into government account in time, whereas in the present case, assessee had not deposited the tax in some cases. 5. The Learned AR on the other hand placed reliance on the First Appellate Order. He reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and cited decisions relied upon by him before the Learned CIT(Appeals). The Learned AR submitted that tax default on the date of imposition of penalty was at Rs.6,37,800 and payment of the assessee from DDA, Unity Infra Projects were build up to the tune of Rs.4,50,00,000 and thus there were genuine reasons to prevent the assessee from paying the tax deducted at source in time. Moreover as soon as the assessee could arrange the funds had deposited the tax to the government authorities. He submitted that it is not the case of the assessee that the assessee had deducted the tax and not deposited in the government treasure. 6. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) after discussing the issue in detail, has deleted the 4 penalty vide para No.5 of the common First Appellate Order for all the assessment years under consideration: "5. I have perused the assessment order, grounds of appeals, written submissions and discussed the matter with the AR of the assessee very carefully. The appellant is a contractor in ma