2010 (11) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant-assessee. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act'") has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.9.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh, (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 861/CHANDI/01, relating to the assessment year 2000-2001. The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court: 1- Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 272A(2)(f), the Tribunal is ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f in form 15H in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as "CIT"] by the 7th of the month following the month in which the declarations were furnished. But the said declarations were furnished late and the delay in that matter varied from 65 to 447 days. The CIT initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(2) (f) of the Act against the Manager of the appellant-bank. Reply was filed on behalf of the Manager that the alleged lapse occurred due to bona fide mistake. But the said plea was rejected. It was also sought to be contended on behalf of the Manager that since no loss occurred to the Revenue, no penalty could be levied. The CIT, however, by order dated 22.10.2001 levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,26,606/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of Patiala, (2005) 277 ITR 315 wherein it had been held that unless there was a deliberate default in furnishing the certificates and if no loss of revenue had occasioned due to the said unintentional default on the part of the assessee, no penalty was exigible. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand supported the order passed by the CIT and upheld by the Tribunal. In State Bank of Patiala's case (supra), the factual position was that the bank had failed to furnish declaration in Form 15H to the Department within the time envisaged by law. In that situation, this Court had held that as the assessee was not required to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X