9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs are that ITO, CIB-4 issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to each of the branch calling for information in respect of specific areas: Date of Notice Code No. Code under which information was called for 27-09-2010 Code No. 003 Time Deposits exceeding Rs. 2 Lakhs with banking company. 27-09-2010 Code No. 006 Payment in cash for purchase of bank drafts or pay orders or bankers' cheque from a banking company of an amount aggregating Rs. 1,00,000/- or more during any one day. 27-09-2010 Code No. 007 Deposit in cash aggregating Rs. 2,00,000 or more, with banking company during any one day. 3. As seen from the notice issued on 27-09-2010 under the 3 codes, assessee was to submit the information by 20-10-2010. As there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences from this day and continues up to the date of this order, namely 25-03-2011. Month No. of days October 10 November 30 December 31 January 31 February 28 March 25 Total 155 and consequently the penalty @ Rs. 100/- per day for each default comes to Rs. 15,500/- in respect of each notice. Hence, the total penalty for three notices works out to Rs. 46,500/- and the same is accordingly, hereby levied". 5. Similar orders were passed in other cases also levying penalty, from the date of default, for each of the code ie. at three times for single notice. 6. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the penalties as he did not find any reasonable cause. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that the so called notices issued by the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout considering the reasonable cause and request made by assessee, the Addl. CIT levied penalty that too three times for the delay occurred treating the one notice as three notices for three different codes. It was submitted that notices were complied subsequently, the data was furnished in the month of March and April, 2011. It was submitted that assessee has a reasonable cause and relied on various case law: 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gayatri Traders [1996] 58 ITD 121 (Hyd) (SB) In the ITAT Hyderabad Bench 'B' (Special Bench) ; 2. M/s. Royal Metal Printers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Range-3, Mumbai; 3. CIT Vs. Ashapura Garments (P) Ltd. ; and 4. Supreme Court of India in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Deposits exceeding Rs. 2 Lakhs under code No. 003 is not to be generally furnished by the banks to the department in the presribed annual return, likewise, other codes also for which different amounts were prescribed by the Act. This indicates that this information was specifically asked for by the ITO, CIB. 10. Instead of giving this separate notice for each code, a common notice was issued for all the three codes. Addl. CIT initiated penalty proceedings by issuing only one notice but levied penalty for three notices as extracted above. This indicates that without issuing notice, the Addl. CIT, CIB levied penalty three times for the same default. This cannot be justified. Not only that, there were various notices which are mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
