9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank account, a show cause notice was issued on 6.1.2006 calling upon the respondent to furnish the requisite details as also for explanation in connection with 156 current accounts and 53 fixed deposits outlining specific defects and infirmities with regard to each such case. 2. Assessee-respondent replied to such show cause notice vide its letter dated 12.1.2006, contending inter alia therein that every time, there is an occasion for opening the bank account, set of documents in the form of specimen signature card, bank account opening Form along with various terms and along with requisite evidence. It was also further contended that wherever PAN details are furnished filling-up the Form No.60 would not be necessary. It was also furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 'C' specific that deposit in cash aggregating to Rs. 50,000/-or more would necessitate customer to furnish the PAN and the person who does not have PAN according to Rule 114B could be required to make declaration under sub-Section 6 of Section 139A read with clause (c) of Sub-Clause (2) of Rule 114C. It is the duty of either Bank Manager or officer of the Bank-receiving such application to ensure that either PAN is quoted or declaration is made in Form-60. Assessing Officer held that the same had given rise to penalty u/s. 272B of the Income Tax Act. Penalty for such failure in each case was levied at Rs. 10,000/- by detail reasonings. 3.2. Assessing Officer noted during the penalty proceedings that details regarding proof of address as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount or could that be done in lump sum ? 4.1 On the 1st issue CIT (Appeals) held that there was default committed by assessee-respondent in not complying with the provision of 139A of the Act read with Rule 114B and 114C of the Income Tax Rules by detailed discussion of factual matrix and applying the provisions of law to the same. 4.2 On the 2nd issue as to whether penalty u/s. 272 could be levied in respect of accounts opened prior to 1.6.2002, it sustained the action of Assessing Officer by holding that the every action which subsisted on the date of introduction of Section 272B would attract penalty under the said provision on the logic that the introduction of penal provision. 4.3. In relation to the 3rd issue whether Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in furnishing these documents at the time of survey, Deficiencies have been complied within 15 days which cannot be called unreasonable period. In consideration of entire facts and circumstances, we delete penalty. 6. The impugned order is challenged, proposing the following question as substantial question of law for our consideration. (I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting penalty in the sum of Rs. 19,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner under section 272B of the Income Tax Act ? 7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Manish Bhatt fervently made his submissions that two adjudicating authorities concurrently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an extent of Rs. 10,000 for non-compliance of section 139A, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Section 139A requires every person to apply for allotment of permanent Account number. This section was substituted by the Finance Act 1995. This present section as it stands a statute book, was substituted by the Finance Act, 1995 for the earlier section 139(A) which came into effect from 1st July 1995. The person when receives income or amount from which the tax is required to be deducted, is to intimate his permanent account No. ("PAN") to the person who is responsible for deducting such tax under that chapter. As can be seen from the discussion made by the Commissioner Appeal in its order that the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penal provisions prospectively or retrospectively was not required to be considered in the light of specific facts themselves and the entire issue has not been touched. 10. Although it has been vehemently contended by the Revenue that the Tribunal has not given cogent reasons in setting aside the the concurrent findings of both the adjudicating authorities. We are not impressed by the elaborate discussion made by both adjudicating authorities on the legal issues when otherwise, there were no facts available for them to apply legal provision as is urged in this appeal by the revenue. We are of the opinion that the entire issue is in the realm of facts. It is true that at the time of survey, bank manager was unable to produce requisite mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
