IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1687/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Kailash Mahal Co.Op. Hsg.Ltd., 50, Kailas Mahal Pedder Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai 400 026. PAN:AAABK 0348M ...... Appellant Vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Range-2, 701, Smt. K.G.Mittal Hospital, Charni Road(W), Mumbai - 400 002 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.C. Agarwal Respondent by : Shri Deepak Ripote Date of hearing : 21/07/2016 Date of pronouncement : 21/09/2016 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 is directed against order passed by CIT(A)- 59 Mumbai dated 08/01/2015 which in turn arises out of order passed by Assessing Officer under section 272A(2)(k) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) dated 26/12/2011. 2. In this appeal, point of dispute relates to penalty imposed by Assessing Officer of Rs.49,779/- under section 272A(2)(k) of Act 2 ITA No. 2347/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) for delay in submission of quarterly statement of TDS in Form No.24Q, which was required to be filed in terms of section 200(3)r.w.r 31A of Income Tax Rules, 1962(in short Rules ). In para 2.1 of order of CIT(A), delay has been enumerated and as per CIT(A) non-compliance by assessee deserves to be penalised in terms of section 272A(2)(k) of Act . 3. Before us, Ld. Representative for assessee pointed out that instant assessment year is only year, where assessee had defaulted in submission of quarterly statement of TDS and, it was further pointed out that assessee had indeed furnished annual statement of TDS. It was, therefore, contended that considering circumstances of case, penalty levied by income tax authorities be set-aside. 4. On other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has defended imposition of penalty as per reasons assigned by CIT(A), which we have already noted above and is not being repeated for sake of brevity. 5. Having considered rival stands, it is quite clear that penalty in question is for delay in submission of quarterly statement of TDS in form No.24Q, and not for compliance requiring deduction of tax at source and deposit of same with Government Treasury. At time of hearing, Ld. Representative for assessee pointed out that in past or in subsequent years there was no occasion for assessee to deduct tax at source and in fact, even during year under consideration it deducted tax at source on payment made 3 ITA No. 2347/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) to contractor only. For this reason, assessee was under bonafide impression that it was to file only Annual statement of TDS, which it did. In our considered opinion, having regard to entire conspectus of facts and circumstances, in present case, no penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of Act is leviable. In fact, perusal of orders of authorities below reveal that no particular justification is made out to levy penalty. It is well settled proposition that no penalty can be levied merely because there is provision in law. Therefore, in our view, penalty levied of Rs. 49,779/-deserves to be deleted. We hold so. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 21/09/2016 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMLAL NEGI) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 21/09/2016 Vm, Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant , 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Kailash Mahal Co.Op. Hsg.Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (TDS), Range-2, Mumbai