Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Syndicate Bank Versus Addl. CIT (CIB) , Hyderabad

2015 (9) TMI 545 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) - CIT considered the non-submission of information as willful default and levied penalty - default in issuing notice - Held that:- There is no need for levy of penalty in the given cases. First of all, the notice issued u/s. 136 is a general notice asking for information which is not in the domain of the ITO, CIB. The CBDT itself has prescribed certain limits for calling for information and Income tax Act also prescribes various limits for furnishing information on a regu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were prescribed by the Act. This indicates that this information was specifically asked for by the ITO, CIB.

Instead of giving this separate notice for each code, a common notice was issued for all the three codes. Addl. CIT initiated penalty proceedings by issuing only one notice but levied penalty for three notices as extracted above. This indicates that without issuing notice, the Addl. CIT, CIB levied penalty three times for the same default. This cannot be justified. Not only th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated:- 26-8-2015 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri Gopala Krishna, AR For The Revenue : Shri Rajat Mitra, DR ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : These appeals are by respective branches of Syndicate Bank levying penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act [Act] of various amounts varying from ₹ 40,000/- to ₹ 50,000/-. Since common issues are involved, we have heard the cases together and decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts leading to the present proceedings a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

007 Deposit in cash aggregating ₹ 2,00,000 or more, with banking company during any one day. 3. As seen from the notice issued on 27-09-2010 under the 3 codes, assessee was to submit the information by 20-10-2010. As there was no compliance to the notice, on 07-01-2011 another letter was issued. On 10th February, 2011, notice u/s. 272A(2)(c) issued to show cause why penalty should not be levied and compliance to be made on 21st February, 2011 to 24th February, 2011 in various cases. Howev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 Journalist Colony Branch 24-02-2011 13-04-2011 1506 Pathergatty Branch 23-02-2011 18-03-2011 1507 New Nallakunta Branch 23-02-2011 11-04-2011 1508 Chaitanyapuri Branch - 27-04-2011 1509 Sainikpuri Branch - 25-02-2011 1510 Malakpet Branch 23-02-2011 20-04-2011 1511 R C Puram Branch 17-02-2011 08-04-2011 1512 Habsiguda Branch - 15-04-2011 1513 Kachiguda Branch 22-02-2011 08-04-2011 4. However, the Addl. CIT considered the non-submission of information as willful default and levied penalty in all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otices works out to ₹ 46,500/- and the same is accordingly, hereby levied . 5. Similar orders were passed in other cases also levying penalty, from the date of default, for each of the code ie. at three times for single notice. 6. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the penalties as he did not find any reasonable cause. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that the so called notices issued by the officers were not received by the respective branches and only second remind notice asking for information .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Manipal, Karnataka State, the matter was referred to the Head Office. Branch has to obtain prior approvals and directions from their central office. Since this process has taken more than 45 days, assessee could not comply to general notice issued. In the mean time, Addl. CIT issued show cause notice of penalty proceedings. Thereafter, it approached the officer for providing sufficient time to comply with the show cause notice. The banks requested for an opportunity and asked time of 40 days in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

too three times for the delay occurred treating the one notice as three notices for three different codes. It was submitted that notices were complied subsequently, the data was furnished in the month of March and April, 2011. It was submitted that assessee has a reasonable cause and relied on various case law: 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gayatri Traders [1996] 58 ITD 121 (Hyd) (SB) In the ITAT Hyderabad Bench B (Special Bench) ; 2. M/s. Royal Metal Printers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Add .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Addl. CIT initiated penalty for one notice but levied for various other periods also, the details of which are not in the knowledge of assessees. Ld. DR after referring the matter to the AO submitted that the records could not be traced at present and expressed his inability to furnish the necessary details. He relied on the orders of Addl. CIT levying penalty. 9. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, I am of the opinio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r. This information is specifically asked by ITO, CIB in a particular format may be on the strength of internal instructions. For example, the Time Deposits exceeding ₹ 2 Lakhs under code No. 003 is not to be generally furnished by the banks to the department in the presribed annual return, likewise, other codes also for which different amounts were prescribed by the Act. This indicates that this information was specifically asked for by the ITO, CIB. 10. Instead of giving this separate no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oubted. As far as bank is concerned, they maintain their inward register and Ld. Counsel fairly stated that they have not received some of the notices which AO is alleged to have issued. Be that as it may, the Revenue is unable to furnish the records at present to examine whether the notices have been properly issued or not? For these reasons, it is difficult to sustain penalties as levied by the Addl. CIT. 11. Not only that, the penalty u/s. 272A(2)(c), is subject to provisions of Section 273B. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version