9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice and not having a reasonable cause for the non-compliance. However, as also noticed that there was only one notice issued, therefore, the penalty can be levied only for noncompliance of the notice once and penalty cannot be levied for the information sought under different codes by the same notice. Therefore, sustain the penalty up to 49,800/- in all the three appeals and the balance amount is deleted. Appeals of the assessee partly allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the different codes separately. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties levied for all the three years by holding as under:- "5.3 I have considered the orders passed by the JDIT(I&CI) and submissions filed by the appellant. The following facts have been emerged; 1. That a notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued by the ITO (Intelligence), Kota on 11/06/2012 to file required information by 09/07/2012. The notice remain un-complied 2. That a penalty notice U/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act was issued 25/10/2013. In response to the notice, the appellant has submitted the information on 20/11/2013. 3. That the JDIT(I&CI) Jaipur has levied penalty of ₹ 49,800/- each for F.Y. 2012-13 with respect to Code 006 and transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. 2. 006 409 Payment in cash for purchase of bank drafts or pay orders or bankers' cheques from a banking company of an amount aggregating to ₹ 1,00,000 or more 3. 007 410 Deposit in cash aggregating ₹ 2,00,000 or more, with banking company during any one day. The Bank could not furnish the required information in time. 1.2 Thereafter, three separate Penalty Notices, dated 25.10.2013, under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued by the Id. JDIT (I & CI), Jaipur, for non-furnishing of the information under the aforesaid three Codes. 1.3 After receiving the Penalty Notices, the appellant Bank furnished the required information, which was after a delay of 498 days. 1.4 The submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature ought to be considered liberally. It has been provided in section 273B that in case a person establishes or proves that he had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions, then no penalty shall be imposable on such person for the said failure. It has been held in several judicial pronouncements that where there was a case of reasonableness, there was no merit in levying the penalty under section 272A(2). 1.6 However, the Id. JDIT (I & CI), Jaipur has levied a penalty of ₹ 49,800 each for the aforesaid three Codes by passing three separate Penalty Orders. 2.1 In Syndicate Bank v. Addl. CIT (2015) Tax Pub(DT) 3614 (Hyd-Trib), the Hon'ble Tribunal opined that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed by the statute." Thus, the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) cannot be levied in a routine manner. The discretion vested with the authority is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A bona fide breach cannot lead to a penalty under section 272A(2)(c)." 3.1 As stated in the Penalty Order, the Notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was issued to the appellant Bank by the Id. ITO (Intelligence), Kota, on 11.06.2012, for furnishing information under three Codes. 3.2 Rule 114E does not cover the information called for. Notice under section 133(6) was general in nature and was not in the domain of the Id. ITO (Intelligen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty of ₹ 49,800 levied by the Id. JCIT (I & CI) under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in all the three appeals and confirmed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not justified and may kindly be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is submitted that there has been a delay of 498 days in filing the information under three Codes, namely, 003, 006 & 007. Penalty of ₹ 49,800 has been levied by the Id. JDIT (I & CI) under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for each of the three Codes separately. 4.1 The information relating to the three Codes was furnished on one and the same date, namely, 20.11.2013. In view of the overlapping default, penalty at best should be restricted to only one Code. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
