State Bank of India, Hyderabad v. Addl.CIT (Intelligence), Hyderabad

ITA 1465/HYD/2014 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 146522514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACS8577K
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1465/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant State Bank of India, Hyderabad
Respondent Addl.CIT (Intelligence), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 29-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 29-04-2015
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 08-09-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1465/HYD/2014 STATE BANK OF INDIA NTPC BRANCH RAMAGUNDAM KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. PAN AAACS8577K VS. ADDL. CIT (INT.) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.1468/HYD/2014 STATE BANK OF INDIA METPALLE BRANCH KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. PAN AAACS8577K VS. ADDL. CIT (INT.) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE TWO ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD DATED 26.06.2014 AND 25.07.20 14 WHEREBY HE SUSTAINED THE PENALTY CONFIRMED OF RS.1 05 300 IMPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SBI METPALLE BRANCH WHILE RESTRICTING THE SIMILAR PENALTY OF RS.1 05 300 IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF NTPC BRANCH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35 100. 2 ITA.NOS.1465 & 1468/HYD/2014 SBI RAMAGUNDAM & METPALLE KARIMNAGAR DIST. 2. THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THE BRANCHES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA. NOTICES UNDER SECT ION 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE A.O. TO BOTH THE ASSE SSEES CALLING FOR INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC AREAS AS UND ER : DATE OF NOTICE CODE NO. CODE UNDER WHICH INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR 27.09.2010 CODE NO.003 TIME DEPOSITS EXCEEDING RS. 2 LAKHS WITH BANKING COMPANY 27.09.2010 CODE NO.006 PAYMENT IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF BANK DRAFTS OR PAY ORDERS OR BANKERS CHEQUE FROM A BANKING COMPANY OF AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.1 00 000 OR MORE DURING ANY ONE DAY. 27.09.2010 CODE NO.007 DEPOSIT IN CASH AGGREGATING RS.2 00 000/- OR MORE WITH BANKING COMPANY DURING ANY ONE DAY. 2.1. AS PER THE ABOVE NOTICES THE INFORMATION CAL LED FOR WAS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES BY 01.11.2010. THEY HOWEVER FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN SPITE OF TWO MORE REMINDERS GIVEN BY THE A.O. THE A.O. THERE FORE ISSUED NOTICES ON 23.09.2011 REQUIRING BOTH THE ASS ESEES TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A(2)( C) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THEIR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTI CES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS HOWEVER NO RESPONSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES TO THE SAID N OTICES AND THE A.O. THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY UND ER SECTION 272A(2)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.1 05 300 ON EACH ASSESSE E CALCULATED @ RS.100 PER DAY FOR THE DEFAULT PERIOD OF 351 DAYS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE THREE NOTICES. 3. THE PENALTIES OF RS.1 05 300 EACH IMPOSED BY TH E A.O. UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) WERE CHALLENGED BY TH E ASSESSEES 3 ITA.NOS.1465 & 1468/HYD/2014 SBI RAMAGUNDAM & METPALLE KARIMNAGAR DIST. IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES THAT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION COUL D NOT BE EXTRACTED/GENERATED AT THE BRANCH LEVEL AS THEY NEE DED SOFTWARE SUPPORT AND PERMISSION OF HEAD OFFICE/REGI ONAL OFFICE FOR PREPARATION AND EXTRACTION OF DATA FROM THE SOFTWARE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INFORMATION AFTER G ETTING THE SUPPORT AND PERMISSION OF THE HEAD OFFICE/REGIONAL OFFICE WAS FINALLY EXTRACTED/GENERATED IN OCTOBER 2011 AN D THE SAME WAS IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. ON 15.10.2011 . IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS THUS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) THE SAID DE LAY NOT BEING INTENTIONAL OR WILLFUL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE HIM THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED PENALTY OF RS.1 05 3 00 TO RS.35 100 IN THE CASE OF NTPC BRANCH VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER : 5. A PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE SHOULD BASICALLY LOOK INTO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS : (A) WAS NON-COMPLIANCE WILLFUL ? (B) WAS NON-COMPLIANCE A DELIBERATE PLOY TO AVOID/FURNISH THE INFORMATION. (C) WAS NON-COMPLIANCE DUE TO THE ACTS BEYOND CONTROL OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ? AS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THE APPLICANTS CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER (A) OR (B) CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED SUPRA. THE APPELLANT 4 ITA.NOS.1465 & 1468/HYD/2014 SBI RAMAGUNDAM & METPALLE KARIMNAGAR DIST. BANK HAD FURNISHED THE INFORMATION ON 15.10.2011 AND 3.2.2012. IT IS THEREFORE SEEN THAT FOR THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS CALLED FOR IN SEPTEMBER 2010 THE COMPLIANCE CAME A YEAR LATER. SECONDLY IN SPITE OF THE SAME DIFFICULTIES IN THE SAME PERIO D THE OTHER BANKS AND EVEN BRANCHES OF THE SAME BANK HAVE COMPLIED WITH AND FILED THE INFORMATION. HOWEVER KEEPING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN VIEW AND THE FACT THE TECHNICALLY ONLY ONE NOTICE WAS ISSUED LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.34 100/- IS CONFIRMED INSTEAD OF RS.1 05 300/-. 4.1. IN CASE OF METPALLE BRANCH THE LD. CIT(A) HO WEVER CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE PENALTY OF RS.1 05 300 IMPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED THE PRESENT AP PEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUF FICIENT CAUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE DELAY RESULTED IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED INFORMATI ON IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) IS SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDENCE AND E-MAILS EXCHANG ED BETWEEN THE TWO ASSESSEES WHICH ARE THE BRANCHES OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WITH THEIR HEAD OFFICE/REGIONAL OFFIC E. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HO WEVER WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES EITHER BY THE A.O. OR BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO PRODUCE THE SAID EVIDENCE. HE HAS URGED T HAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY THEREFORE BE GIVEN TO THE ASS ESEES TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE OF SUFFICIENT CAU SE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY PRODUCING THE RELEVANT EVI DENCE. SINCE THE LEARNED D.R. HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OB JECTION IN THIS REGARD WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE A.O. FOR THE 5 ITA.NOS.1465 & 1468/HYD/2014 SBI RAMAGUNDAM & METPALLE KARIMNAGAR DIST. LIMITED PURPOSE OF GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEES TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CASE OF SUFFICIENT CASE FOR THE DELAY AS PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY PRODUCING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE AND E-MAILS EXCHANGED WITH THEIR HEA D OFFICE/REGIONAL OFFICE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH APRIL 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA NTPC BRANCH RAMAGUNDAM KARIMNAGAR DIST. C/O. MR. K. VASANTKUMAR & A.V. RAGHURAM ADVOCATES 610 BABUKHAN ESTATE BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA METPALLY BRANCH KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. 3. CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD 4. CIT-(CIB) HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE