9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd only partial compliance by way of submission in the form of printouts, has been made. Considering that aforesaid order dated 23.03.2008 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi is distinguishable, as mentioned in foregoing paragraph (E) of this order; we have find that the aforesaid penalty levied by Ld. Addl. CIT, and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A); was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the appeals before us. Accordingly, penalties levied by the Addl. CIT and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby upheld. Appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. - ITA No:- 3510 and 3511/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2019 - H.S. SIDHU (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessee by : Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv. and Shri A.T. Panda, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR, ORDER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) For the sake of convenience and brevity, these two appeals are being disposed off by this consolidated order; as similar / interlinked issues are involved. Both These appeals are filed against separate orders each dated 02.04.2012 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, there was no justification in the levy of penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. (A.1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), confirmed penalty levied by learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-I, New Delhi ( Addl.CIT , for short) vide two separate orders each dated 22.04.2009,under Section 272A(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( IT Act , for short). In each of the aforesaid two orders dated 22.04.2009 of Ld. Addl.CIT levied penalty, amounting to ₹ 10,000/- under Section 272A(1)(c) of I.T. Act; on the ground that the assessee had failed to comply with summons dated 12.09.2007 and 12.10.2007. The relevant portions from the aforesaid orders, each dated 22.04.2009 are reproduced as under; in the following paragraphs (A.1.1) and (A.1.2), corresponding to the two appeals separately: (A.1.1) Corresponding to ITA- 3510/Del/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year it has mobilized deposits to tune of ₹ 6,391.65 crores through the services of its agent M/s Sahara India spread over 1500 branches and this amount represented collections made from about 3 crores depositors. The L d Assessing Officer required the appellant to furnish branch-wise details of collections sorting out payments received in cash and by cheque: and similar details in respect of branch-wise repayment of deposits giving repayment by cheques and cash. The appellant, as already stated herein above, is operating through its Agent M/s Sahara India which, in turn is operating from 1500 branches spread all over the country. As far as the appellant is concerned, a consolidated statement is being submitted by the Agent on fortnightly basis in respect of deposits and maturities on the basis of which accounting entry in the books of account as well as deposit ledgers is passed by the appellant company. The information which was called for by the L d Assessing Officer was available in the books of account of agent M/s Sahara India which was summoned from them. Similarly the L d Assessing Officer called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i: respect of non-submission of details of the balance branches and has levied penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Another factor which has to be taken in to consideration is that par compliance of the same has been made by the appellant and, therefore, the same cannot be equated with non-compliance and the appellant should not have been visited with the penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. In any view of the matter because of the circumstances narrated herein above, it will further be appreciated that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act with the appellant for not being able to make full compliance of the detail called for vide summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, also the penalty deserves to be cancelled. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following cases :- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and assimilated may be true but this does not absolve the appellant of the fact that it did not comply with the requirements made by the Assessing Office When the accounts are maintained on computer then the contention that the information was voluminous cannot be taken as an alibi for not furnishing the same. It hardly takes a few minutes to print the information and even if it is t be collected from various branches the same can be retrieved in few minute by receiving it through Emails. The Assessing Officer in the penalty order ha mentioned the various dates on which the appellant was required to furnish the information. Yet the appellant did not comply with the notices. It is further observed that the appellant did not submit the entire details in hard cop] which would have exhibited its sincerity in complying with the notices if it was not possible to submit in a CD as required by the Assessing Officer Considering these facts the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed u/s 272A(l)(c) is upheld. 11. In result, the appeal is dismissed. (B.2) Corresponding to ITA No. 3511/Del/2012 4. The appellant has taken 7 ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, as already stated herein above, is operating through its Agent M/s Sahara India which, in turn is operating from 1500 branches spread a over the country. As far as the appellant is concerned, a consolidated statement is being submitted by the Agent on fortnightly basis in respect of deposits and maturities on the basis of which accounting entry in the books of account a well as deposit ledgers is passed by the appellant company. The information which was called for by the L d Assessing Officer was available in the book of account of agent M/s Sahara India which was summoned from them. Similarly the L d Assessing Officer called for details of 400 top depositor from each branch setting out the following particulars in respect of each depositors:- 1) Name and address of depositor 2) Number of accounts in his name 3) Opening balance as on 1.4.2005 4) Deposit received during the year; (a) in cash (b) in cheque 5) Repayment made to depositor during the year; (a) in cash (b) in cheque 6) Closing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter because of the circumstances narrated herein above it will further be appreciated that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act with the appellant for no' being able to make full compliance of the detail called for vide summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, also the penalty deserves to be cancelled. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following cases Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 C.I.T. v. Eli Lilly Co. (India) (P) Ltd. 178 Taxman 505 (SC) C.I.T. v. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. 260 ITR 641 (Raj.) C.I.T. v. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary 211 ITR 472 (Pat.) (F.B.) Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 252 ITR 471 In all the above mentioned judgment, it has been held that the penalty is not automatic if there are good and sufficient reasons for any failure. There is no justification in levying penalty. The appellant would also like to place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of: C.I.T. v. Mitsui And Co. Ltd. And Another 272 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has mentioned the various dates on which the appellant was required to furnish the information. Yet the appellant did not comply with the notices. It is further observed that the appellant did not submit the details in hard copy which would have exhibited its sincerity in complying with the notices if it was not possible to submit in a CD as required by the Assessing Officer. The appellant had submitted the details of only 70 branches as against 1500 maintained b; it. Considering these facts the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed u/s 272A(l)(c is upheld. 11. In result, the appeal is dismissed. (C) The present appeals before us have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned two separate orders dated 02.04.2012 of the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short), the following written submissions were filed from assessee s side by way of brief synopsis, which are reproduced below in the following paragraphs (C.1) and (C.2) corresponding to the two appeals separately: (C.1) Corresponding to ITA No.- 3510/Del/2012: (C.2) Correspon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-02 2002-03 wherein Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi had deleted penalty levied U/s 272A(1)(c) of I.T. Act. He also took us through the contents of the Paper Book; and contended that the penalties levied U/s 272A(1)(c) of I.T. Act for Assessment Year 2005-06, which are the subject matter of the present appeal before us should also be deleted. However, the Learned Departmental Representative ( Ld. DR , for short) submitted that the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi is distinguishable because in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008 it was held by ITAT that the assessee had not omitted to produce the books of accounts or documents; whereas in the facts and circumstances of the appeals before us, the assessee had failed to file all the details, and details were only partially submitted in the form of printouts. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also admitted that the assessee had failed to ensure full compliance of the summons dated 12.09.2007 and 12.10.2007; and had in fact submitted only partial details in the form of printouts in response to summons dated 12.10.2007 whereas no details were submitted (in the CD or in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
