Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
The Manager, State Bank Of India, Kanpur vs Jt. Dit (I & Ci), Kanpur on 31 January, 2018
I.T.A. No.38/Lkw/2017
1
Assessment Year:2012-13
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.38/Lkw/2017
Assessment Year:2012-13
The Manager, Vs. Jt. DIT (I&CI),
State Bank of India, Kanpur.
Yadhodanagar Branch,
Kanpur.
TAN:KNPSO 3345 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Respondent by Shri Amit Nigam, D. R.
Date of hearing 31/01/2018
Date of pronouncement 31/01/2018
ORDER
PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 30/06/2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13.
2. The only ground taken by assessee is the confirmation of penalty which the Assessing Officer had imposed u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed this penalty for default in compliance to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act.
3. At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that the assessee is a banking company and during the year under consideration the Assessing Officer wanted certain information from the branch for which he issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee had taken first adjournment for preparing the required information and after that again the I.T.A. No.38/Lkw/2017 2 Assessment Year:2012-13 Assessing Officer issued notice on 08/12/2014 and the assessee had filed the required information on 01/12/2014 and therefore, there was no default in complying with the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. It was submitted that there was certainly a delay in submitting the information which had occurred due to certain unforeseen circumstances as the internal audit of the branch was in progress. It was submitted that there was no malafide intention to delay the information demanded by the Assessing Officer therefore, it was prayed that the penalty confirmed by learned CIT(A) may be deleted.
4. Learned D. R., on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments of Learned A. R. and submitted that the banking authorities are reluctant to submit the required information and due to delay in submission of information the Revenue sometimes fails to collect the due taxes from the tax payers therefore, it was argued that the penalty confirmed by learned CIT(A) be upheld.
5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 24/05/2013 u/s 133(6) wanted certain information which was not provided to the Assessing Officer on time therefore, for non compliance of the notice u/s 133(6), the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for the delay. For calculation of the penalty amount the Assessing Officer worked out a default of 541 days and default was calculated from the date of issue of notice i.e. 24/05/2013. However, he has ignored various adjournments granted by him and ultimately the information was also filed on 01/12/2014. This fact of having filed the information by the assessee is recorded by the Assessing Officer on the last page of his order. We further observe that bank branches are subject to various kinds of audit such as internal audit, tax audit and statutory audit. Besides the above audit the bank is always engaged in day to day activities in service of its customers I.T.A. No.38/Lkw/2017 3 Assessment Year:2012-13 and therefore, keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the delay in filing of necessary information should not have invited penalty for default in complying the provisions of section 133(6). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) has held as under:
"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. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. 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 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."
We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied u/s 271A(2)(c) of the Act.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2018) Sd/. Sd/.
(PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR )
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:31/01/2018
*Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow