PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the imposition of penalty as per Ext.P4, as also Ext.P8 appellate order, which confirms the same. The penalty was imposed with respect to the return filed, regarding tax deduction at source, which the Life Insurance Corporation as employer was obliged to do under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 139A provided that the PAN number of the deductees from whom such tax was deducted should be specified in the quarterly TDS returns filed under the Act. Admittedly no such numbers were evident in the TDS returns filed for the last quarter of the financial year 2005-2006.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that, he had assumed charge of the Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation, Nedumkandam Branch on 29.5.2006 and the TDS returns were filed under Form 26-Q on 26.6.2006. Though it is admitted that the petitioner had filed the said returns, it is contended that the same was prepared by the predecessor in office, who prepared it on 8.4.2006. There is also an additional contention raised that, section 139A mandating the PAN numbers to be disclosed in the returns came into force on 1.6.2006 and the return was filed only 26 days after that. The amendment brought in introducing section 139A was not noticed by the petitioner is the contention.

(3.) With reference to the second contention raised, it is trite that none can plead ignorance of law. The provision having been introduced from 1.6.2006, any return filed subsequent to that, would have to comply with the said provision and any dalliance thereon would invite proceedings under section 272B. Further, the return having been filed by the petitioner, the fact that it was prepared by his predecessor in office, cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioner having put his signature to the returns ought to have verified whether the returns are filed in compliance with the Income Tax Act.