THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. JDIT(I & CI), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 133 to 135/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Branch Manager, JDIT, Vs. Central Bank of India, (I&CI), Jaipur. Sultanpur, Kota (Raj). LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 2498 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA). jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.P. Meena (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 08/03/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 30/12/2016 of Ld. CIT (A), Alwar, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. In all these appeals, there are only one common issue, which is against confirmation of penalty U/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) of Rs. 53,000/- each for delay in furnishing information under the various codes asked by

ITA 133 to 135/JP/2017_ 2 Branch Manager, CBI Vs. JDIT(I&CI)

issuing notice by the ITO (Intelligence), Kota U/s 133(6) of the Act read

with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules).

all the appeals are being heard together and for the sake of

convenience and brevity, common order is being passed.

for furnishing information under various codes on 18/6/2012. However,

there was a delay in compliance of more than 530 days and when the

show cause notice was issued for levying penalty U/s 272A(2)(c) of the

Act. The assessee submitted that due to promotion of officers and LDC

staffs during the year 2012-13, there was a shortage of officers and

staffs, therefore, compliance could not be made in time. It was also

submitted that in the future no such fault has been accrued. The non-

compliance was not deliberate. It was due to bonafide shortage of

staffs. It was also submitted that the assessee is a public sector

undertaking and the branch office is situated at Sultanpur, Kota, which

is a small place. Staff was in shortage, therefore, it was little bit difficult

to deduce the information asked from records, which was voluminous.

Therefore, it took time to comply with the notices. However, thereafter,

ITA 133 to 135/JP/2017_ 3 Branch Manager, CBI Vs. JDIT(I&CI)

it has been made a point that no delay in furnishing any information

would take place in future. The ld AR of the assessee has relied on the

various decisions i.e. decision in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. ACIT,

ITA Nos. 1501 to 15013/Hyd/14 dated 26/08/2015, wherein the Hon’ble

ITAT has held that when there is a reasonable cause for non-

compliance of notice, the penalty could not be leviable. Reliance was

also placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Superintending

Engineer, P.W.D., Udaipur, (2003), 260 ITR 641 (Raj), wherein the

Hon'ble High Court has held that the discretion to levy the penalty U/s

272A(2)(c) of the Act is vested with the authority which has to exercise

the same judiciously on considering of all relevant facts and

circumstances. A bonafide breach cannot lead to levy of penalty.

orders of the authorities below.

the material available on the record and also gone through the orders

of the authorities below on this issue. The branch office from whom this

information was sought by issuing notice U/s 133(6) of the Act is

located in the rural area of Kota district. The branch was having

ITA 133 to 135/JP/2017_ 4 Branch Manager, CBI Vs. JDIT(I&CI)

shortage of officers and staffs, therefore, it took time to deduce the

necessary information under the various codes. There is no subsequent

breach in compliance. In view of these facts, no penalty could have

been levied. Considering the case laws relied by the AR of the assessee

including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of

CIT Vs. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Udaipur (supra), wherein the

Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-

“The Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 has observed that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The apex court further observed that penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The powers are to be exercised judiciously. The apex court held as follows:

Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is

ITA 133 to 135/JP/2017_ 5 Branch Manager, CBI Vs. JDIT(I&CI)

prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed 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).” And the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. ACIT

(supra), wherein it has been held:-

“9. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, I am of the opinion that there is no need for levy of penalty in the given cases. First of all, the notice issued u/s. 136 is a general notice asking for information which is not in the domain of the ITO, CIB. The CBDT itself has prescribed certain limits for calling for information and Income tax Act also prescribes various limits for furnishing information on a regular basis from the banks in annual returns. The details asked in various codes is neither prescribed by the Act nor supported by the Board’s circular. This information is specifically asked by ITO, CIB in a particular format may be on the strength of internal instructions. For example, the Time Deposits exceeding Rs. 2 Lakhs under code No. 003 is

ITA 133 to 135/JP/2017_ 6 Branch Manager, CBI Vs. JDIT(I&CI) not to be generally furnished by the banks to the department in the prescribed 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.” Considering all these factual aspects of the case and also the case laws relied upon, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in all the three appeals.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼dqy Hkkjr½ ¼Hkkxpan½ (Kul Bharat) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@ U;kf;d lnL;@ U;kf;d lnL;@ U;kf;d lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member ys[kk lnL;@ Tk;iqj@Jaipur Tk;iqj Tk;iqj Tk;iqj fnukad@Dated:- 10th March, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The Branch Manager, Central Bank of 1. India, Sultanpur, Kota (Raj). izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The JDIT, (I&CI), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 133 to 135/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत