9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B). - Decided in favor of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 1420 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Ms. Sonia Gokani, JJ. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the Appellant. Manish J. Shah for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ms. Sonia Gokani J. Brief outline of the factual details at the outset is necessary for determination of this Tax Appeal. 1.1 Respondent-assessee is Co-operative Bank engaged in the business of Banking. Survey was carried out on 27.12.2005 for verifying the regularity in opening bank account. On having found alleged breaches in complying with the various provisions of law while opening the bank account, a show cause notice was issued on 6.1.2006 calling upon the respondent to furnish the requisite det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk to ensure that the applicant while opening the bank account must furnish address, essentially to make the system full proof for establishing the identity of the person concerned treated the same as a major breach. 3.1. On having also found that in number of matters opening of bank accounts without requisite proof of PAN/proof of address was permitted, the same was held in complete breach of the legal provision. Thus, on account of alleged violation of section 139A(6)/139A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 114B(f) of Income Tax Rules, such transactions also prescribed by CBDT under Rule 114(B) of the Income Tax Rules, where clause 'C' specific that deposit in cash aggregating to Rs. 50,000/-or more would necessitate customer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Commissioner(Appeals), which after noting the disputes raised by the Revenue and on carefully considering the rival submissions of the parties, culled out three issues namely : 1. Whether there was any default on the part of assessee in confirming with the provision of section 139A read with rule 114B and 114D of the Income Tax Rules? 2. Whether penalty can be levied in respect of bank accounts opened prior to the insertion of Section 272B of the Income Tax Act in respect of accounts opened prior to 1.6.2002 ? 3. Whether penalty of Rs. 10,000/- can be levied u/s. 272B separately in respect of each bank account or could that be done in lump sum ? 4.1 On the 1st issue CIT (Appeals) held that there was default committed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survey, within a period of two weeks of the request, details in respect of these accounts were furnished before the AO, which was listed in the assessee's written submissions. It emerges that all the documents purport to have been submitted prior to opening of bank accounts, indicating that these documents were not pertained subsequently, leading to a inference because at the time of survey, immediately assessee's bank's lady manager could not produce all the relevant details cannot automatically entail imposition of penalty . In our view, with given facts and circumstances assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in furnishing these documents at the time of survey, Deficiencies have been complied within 15 days which cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or misplacement of the some of the documents which were vital in the issue under consideration. Again as contended by learned senior counsel that there are hardly any question of law arising in the instant case and Tribunal also having based its findings on material adduced by both the sides, this appeal deserves no consideration. 272B of the ITAT Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 139A.: "(1) If a person fails to comply with the provisions of section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, as sum of ten thousand rupees." This provision impose penalty on the person to an extent of Rs. 10,000 for non-compliance of section 139A, after affording an opportunity of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the survey and afterwards within a period of two weeks they were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Since, these documents at the time of survey were not presented, it was inferred that they were collected subsequently in post survey period. The explanation given by the respondent assessee of late production of these documents after a fortnight was found justifiable by the Tribunal. Therefore, it clearly held that this was not a case where by the non-production of material at the relevant time rendered back liable for the penalty under section 272(B). Thus it is apparent from this discussion of the Tribunal that the issue of applicability on penal provisions prospectively or retrospectively was not required to be considered in the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
