TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as only one notice issued, therefore, the penalty can be levied only for noncompliance of the notice once and penalty cannot be levied for the information sought under different codes by the same notice. Therefore, sustain the penalty up to ₹ 49,800/- in all the three appeals and the balance amount is deleted. Appeals of the assessee partly allowed. - ITA Nos. 197 to 199/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri B.L. Bhojwani (CA) Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT) ORDER Per : Bhagchand, A.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 04/01/2017 of Ld. CIT(A), Alwar, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. There is common is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt codes separately. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties levied for all the three years by holding as under:- 5.3 I have considered the orders passed by the JDIT(I CI) and submissions filed by the appellant. The following facts have been emerged; 1. That a notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued by the ITO (Intelligence), Kota on 11/06/2012 to file required information by 09/07/2012. The notice remain un-complied 2. That a penalty notice U/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act was issued 25/10/2013. In response to the notice, the appellant has submitted the information on 20/11/2013. 3. That the JDIT(I CI) Jaipur has levied penalty of ₹ 49,800/- each for F.Y. 2012-13 with respect to Code 006 and transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for 1. 003 403 Time deposits exceeding ₹ 2 lakhs with banking company. 2. 006 409 Payment in cash for purchase of bank drafts or pay orders or bankers cheques from a banking company of an amount aggregating to ₹ 1,00,000 or more 3. 007 410 Deposit in cash aggregating ₹ 2,00,000 or more, with banking company during any one day. The Bank could not furnish the required information in time. 1.2 Thereafter, three separate Penalty Notices, dated 25.10.2013, unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Copy of the Composite Order, dated 30.04.2015, is enclosed as Annexure IA. (b) Allahabad Bank, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur v. Income Tax Officer (Intelligence)/Jt. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence), Kanpur; (ITAT Lucknow). Copy of the Order, 28.07.2015, is enclosed as Annexure IB. 1.5 The Appellant Bank is a public office and the default of this nature ought to be considered liberally. It has been provided in section 273B that in case a person establishes or proves that he had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions, then no penalty shall be imposable on such person for the said failure. It has been held in several judicial pronouncements that where there was a case of reasonableness, there was no merit in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Thus, the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) cannot be levied in a routine manner. The discretion vested with the authority is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A bona fide breach cannot lead to a penalty under section 272A(2)(c). 3.1 As stated in the Penalty Order, the Notice under section 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which different amounts were prescribed by the Act. This indicates that this information was specifically asked for by the ITO, CIB. 3.3 It is pertinent to mention that section 124(3) which prescribe the time within which a person can call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer does not apply to a Notice issued under section 133(6). It is, therefore, prayed that the penalty of ₹ 49,800 levied by the Id. JCIT (I CI) under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in all the three appeals and confirmed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not justified and may kindly be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is submitted that there has been a delay of 498 days in filing the information under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
