TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity however was not given to the assessee's either by the A.O. or by the Ld. CIT(A) to produce the said evidence and urged that one more opportunity may therefore, be given to the assessee's to support and substantiate its case of sufficient cause pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) by producing the relevant evidence. Since the learned D.R. has also not raised any serious objection in this regard, we restore the matter to the file of the A.O. for the limited purpose of giving one more opportunity to the assessee to support and substantiate their case of sufficient case for the delay as pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) by producing the relevant documentary evidence in the form of correspondence and e-mails exchanged with their Head Office/Regiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 1,00,000 or more during any one day. 27.09.2010 Code No.007 Deposit in cash aggregating ₹ 2,00,000/- or more, with banking company during any one day. 2.1. As per the above notices, the information called for was to be furnished by the assessees by 01.11.2010. They however, failed to furnish the required information in spite of two more reminders given by the A.O. The A.O. therefore, issued notices on 23.09.2011 requiring both the assesees to show cause as to why penalty under section 272A(2)(c) should not be imposed for their non-compliance to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. There was however, no response on the part of the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,05,300 to ₹ 35,100 in the case of NTPC Branch vide paragraph No.5 of his impugned order as under : 5. A penalty for non-compliance to notice should basically look into the following questions : (a) Was non-compliance willful ? (b) Was non-compliance a deliberate ploy to avoid/furnish the information. (c) Was non-compliance due to the acts beyond control of the person to whom the notice was issued ? As evident from the submissions made, the applicant s case does not fall under (a) or (b) circumstances mentioned supra. The appellant bank had furnished the information on 15.10.2011 and 3.2.2012. It is therefore seen that for the information which was called for in September 2010, the compliance came a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
