Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Branch Manager, Ajmer Central ... vs Jdit (I & Ci), Jaipur on 20 December, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR
Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 890/JP/2016
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15
Branch Manager, cuke JDIT (I&CI),
M/s Ajmer Central Co-operative Vs. Jaipur.
Bank Ltd., near Roadways Bus
Stand, Kishangarh.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAA 0330 N
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Rai.
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2016
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 20/12/2016
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/07/2016 passed by the ld CIT(A), Ajmer confirming of penalty U/s 272A(2)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The assessee has raised only one ground of the appeal against not deleting the penalty imposed U/s 272A(2)(C) of the Act.
2 ITA 890/JP/2016_ Branch Manager, ACCBL Vs. JDIT
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the ITO (Intelligence), Jaipur-1 called information U/s 133(6) of the Act vide letter dated 25/7/2013 relating to aggregate cash deposit exceeding Rs. 2.00 lacs by depositors and payment of interest exceeding Rs. 10,000/- to its members for last three years i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in a format prescribed by him both in hard and soft copy. The assessee could not provide requisite information till the date of imposition of penalty U/s 272A(2)(C) of the Act by the JDIT (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) on 22/7/2014.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the JDIT (I&CI), the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, has confirmed the levy of penalty by holding as under:-
"I have gone through the penalty order, grounds of appeal and written submission carefully. It is seen that the records of the appellant of cooperative bank were kept in manual format. The staff available with the branch was also very limited and overburdened. The information was called for first time. According to the appellant, in view of these facts, the appellant could not furnish the information requisitioned by the ITO, Intelligence-1, Jaipur u/s 133(6) vide his letter dated 25.07.2013 in Excel Format in soft copy. The appellant had requested for allowing it the time to furnish the information 3 ITA 890/JP/2016_ Branch Manager, ACCBL Vs. JDIT requisitioned in CD (soft copy). The information requisitioned by the AO was not furnished by the appellant even till the date of passing the order dated 22.07.2014, levying the penalty of Rs. 34,900/- u/s 272A(2)(c). Thus, it is a case of non compliance of the notice issued u/s 133(6) and not a case of delayed compliance. The reasons given by the appellant for the non compliance, in my opinion could be a reasonable cause for the delayed compliance but not for the non compliance. Hence, taking into account all the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that penalty can be levied u/s 272A(2)(c) for the failure to furnish the information requisitioned u/s 133(6) till the date of passing the order us 272A(2C), as the appellant did not have any reasonable cause for the non compliance of the notice issued u/s 133(6) by the AO. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO is hereby confirmed.
4. Now the assessee is in appeal before me. None attended on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Ld. DR was heard and she supported the order of the lower authorities.
5. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. At the time of hearing, no one attended on behalf of the assessee. After considering the contention of the ld. DR and material available on record, I hold that there is no material available on record, 4 ITA 890/JP/2016_ Branch Manager, ACCBL Vs. JDIT which could explain the non compliance to the notice U/s 163(6) of the Act on the part of the assessee, therefore, I find no reason to intervene in the order passed by the JDIT (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) in levying the penalty as well as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty. Therefore, I confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A).
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/12/2016.
Sd/-
¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20th December, 2016 *Ranjan vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Branch Manager, M/s Ajmer Central Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Kishangarh.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The JDIT (I&CI), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 890/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar