M/s State Bank of India, Hyderabad V. Addl.CIT (CIB), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1485/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5940 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 273B; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1485/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD. PAN AACS 8577 K VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 07-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD, DATED 15/07/2014 FOR AY 2 011-12. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT NOTICES W ERE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T ACT CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATI ON REGARDING TIME DEPOSITS (CODE 003), PAYMENTS IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF BANK DRAFTS (CODE 006) AND DEPOSITS IN CASH AGGREGATING RS. 2,0 0,000 LAKHS OR MORE (CODE 007) ETC., VIDE NOTICE DATED 27-09-2010. THE INFORMATION WAS TO BE FILED BY 01.11.2010. AS THERE WAS NO RESP ONSE, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT ON 07-01-2011 AND AGAIN ON 01.03.20 11 DRAWING THE ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 272A(2)(C) FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 07.03.2011. AS NO INFORMATION WAS FILED TILL 30.03.2011, THE ADDL. CIT (CIB) FELT THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND OR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DEL AYED COMPLIANCE, 2 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. HE LEVIED A PENALTY FOR NON COMPLIANCE AT THE RATE OF RS. 100/- PER DAY FOR THE DELAY OF 150 DAYS WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS. 15,000/- IN RESPECT OF EACH NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY WAS LE VIED FOR DEFAULT ON ACCOUNT OF THREE NOTICES AT RS. 45,000/-. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO BY HOLDI NG THAT INABILITY TO FURNISH INFORMATION BY THE ASSESSEE-BANK IN SPITE O F SEVERAL REMINDERS, NOTICES, PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND E VEN AFTER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ONLY INDICATES CASUAL AND IND IFFERENT APPROACH OF THE BANK IN COMPLYING WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL A ND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING PEN ALTY OF RS.45,000/- FOR THE ALLEGED DEFAULT IN FURNISHING T HE INFORMATION. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE EFFORTS TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION BUT COU LD NOT FILE IT IN SPITE OF BEST OF EFFORTS PUT IN BY HIM AS THE SAME HAS TO BE DRAWN FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE AND FURTHER THAT THERE IS NO A LLEGATION OF LOSS OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE INFO RMATION WITHIN TIME AND THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE ALLEGED DEFAULT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A WILLFUL DEFAULT WI THOUT REASONING OUT AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT WOULD STAND TO BENEFIT FROM OUT OF SUCH WILLFUL DEFAULT. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAIL ED TO CONSIDER THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE APPELLANT BRINING TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY INVOLVED IN FILING THE INFORMA TION IN TIME. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILI NG THE INFORMATION SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF PENALTY WOUL D BE ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS. 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DE LAY WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WILLFUL AS THE INFORMATION COULD NO T BE EXTRACTED/GENERATED AT THE BRANCH LEVEL AND IT NEED ED SOFTWARE 3 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. SUPPORT AND PERMISSION OF HEAD OFFICE/REGIONAL OFFI CE FOR PREPARATION AND EXTRACTION OF DATA FROM THE SOFTWARE. 5.1 LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF TH E ASSESSEE, EXECUTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, FOR ADMISSION OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH PETITION DATED 15/07/2015, WHER EIN IT WAS AFFIRMED AS UNDER: 1. I AM THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND AS SUCH I AM AWARE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND COMPETENT T O DEPOSE TO THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. I HAVE JOINED THE S BI AMEERPET BRANCH ON 23RD OCTOBER 2013. I AM DEPOSING TO THE C ONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AND THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT MY DISPOSA L. 2. THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) SUSTAINING PENALTY OF RS.45,000/ - FOR THE ALLEGED DEFAULT IN FURNISHING OF INFORMATION. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.45,0 00/- IS THAT THE APPELLANT BRANCH WAS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO FILE THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO TIME DEPOSITS EXCEEDING RS.2 LAKHS, PAYMENT OF CASH FOR PURCHASING BANK DRAFTS IN RESPE CT OF AMOUNTS AGGREGATING RS.1 LAKH AND DEPOSIT OF CASH A GGREGATING RS.2 LAKHS OR MORE DURING ANYONE DAY OF THE CUSTOME RS OF THE APPELLANT BRANCH. APART FROM JUST FILING THE INFORM ATION, THIS WAS TO BE FILED IN THE FORMAT SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE NOTICES CALLING THE ABOVE INFORMATION WERE GIVEN ON 27.09.2010. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO ME BY MY OFFI CE' BRANCH PEOPLE, INFORMATION MENTIONED ABOVE WAS SOUGHT BY M Y PREDECESSOR FROM REGIONAL/HEAD OFFICE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR AT THIS STAGE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED THEREAFTE R. 4. I SUBMIT THAT WHEN I ASSUMED THE CHARGE IN THIS BRANCH THE APPEAL WAS ALREADY PENDING AND I CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE CASE ONLY WHEN I RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING POSTING THE CASE ON 3RD DECEMBER 2013. IMMEDIATELY, I CONTACTED OUR ITS (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE DEPT.) TO PROVIDE T HE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMP LY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING. I KEPT ON PURSUING THE MATTE R INTERNALLY FOR THE INFORMATION BUT THE INFORMATION WAS NOT RECEIVE D. LATER ON, I RECEIVED NOTICE OF HEARING POSTING THE CASE ON 7TH JULY 2014. I ATTENDED THE HEARING PERSONALLY AND EXPLAINED THE D IFFICULTY IN GETTING THE INFORMATION AND ASSURED THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THE EFFORTS ARE ON AND THE INFORMATI ON WILL BE FURNISHED AT THE EARLIEST. HOWEVER, TO MY SURPRISE, THE 4 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING FURTHER OPPOR TUNITY HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. I HAVE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBU NAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND SIM ULTANEOUSLY I KEPT ON TRYING FOR THE INFORMATION WITH OUR REGIO NAL/HEAD OFFICE AND ULTIMATELY THE INFORMATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE T O ME IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2014. I HAVE PROCESSED THE INFORMAT ION IN THE FORMAT REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMIT TED THE SAME TO HIM ON 12TH SEPTEMBER 2014. AS I WAS ADVISED TO SEND THE INFORMATION TO SOME OTHER ADDRESS, THE SAME WAS DON E ON 19TH SEPTEMBER 2014 BY SENDING THE INFORMATION TO THE CO NCERNED EMAIL ADDRESS. 6. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO WILLFU L INTENTION NOT TO HONOUR THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT I CAME TO THIS BRANCH ONLY IN OCTOBER 2013 AND I HAVE PURSUED THE CASE. FURTHER, THE INFORMATION SOUGHT F OR IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT PERIOD BUT IS RELATED TO EARLIER PERIODS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WILL NOT HAVE READY ACCESS. THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR WILL BE WITHIN THE CONTROL O F REGIONAL AND HEAD OFFICES AND THE APPELLANT HAD TO TAKE NECESSAR Y APPROVALS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION. THAT APART, THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO BE SUBMI TTED IN PRESCRIBED FORMAT AND ALL THE ABOVE PROCESS TOOK SO ME TIME AND THE APPELLANT COULD FILE THE INFORMATION ONLY ON 12 .09.2014 AND 19.09.2014. 7. THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FACTS IS F ILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS IN THE FORM OF COMPACT DISK (CD) WHICH CONTAINS THE TRANSACTIONS AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURTHER CONTAINS DOCUMENTS TO EVIDENCE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE I NFORMATION CALLED FOR VIZ., (I) COMMUNICATION TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SBI, DT.23.07.2014, (II) E-MAIL, DT.12.09.20 14 SENDING THE DATA CALLED FOR AND (III) E-MAIL; DT.19.09.2014 SENDING THE DAT A CALLED FOR. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COU LD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE INFORMATION WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT, AND THE APPELLANT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING IT FROM THE REGIONAL AND HEAD OFFICES. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A FIRST OF A SOUGHT EX PERIENCE TO THE UNDER SIGNED ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH HE COULD NOT EFFEC TIVELY CONVINCE THE HIGHER UPS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION. 9. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO WI LLFUL INTENTION NOT TO FILE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. IF THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL IS NOT PLEASED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ADJUDI CATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE PUT TO IRREPARABL E LOSS. 5 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRAYED THAT T HE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE IN THE FORM OF COMPACT DISK (CD) WHICH CONTAINS THE TRANSA CTIONS AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND (I) COMMUNICATI ON TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SBI, DT.23.07.2014, (II) E-MAIL, DT.12.09.20 14 SENDING THE DATA CALLED FOR AND (III) E-MAIL, DT.19 .09.2014 SENDING THE DATA CALLED FOR, AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) A S THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE. 5.2 THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SMC BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SYNDICATE BANK IN ITA NOS. 1501 TO 1513/HYD/14 FOR AY 2011-12, ORDER DATED 26/08/2015, WHEREIN THE SMC BENCH, HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A( 2)(C) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE GIVEN C ASES. FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 136 IS A GENERAL NOTICE ASKING F OR 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 A CT ALSO PRESCRIBES VARIOUS LIMITS FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION ON A REGULAR BASI S FROM THE BANKS IN ANNUAL RETURNS. THE DETAILS ASKED IN VARIOUS CODES IS NEITHER PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT NOR SUPPORTED BY THE BOARDS CIRCULAR. THIS INFORMATION IS SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY ITO, CIB IN A PARTICULAR FORM AT MAY BE ON THE STRENGTH OF INTERNAL INSTRUCTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, TH E TIME DEPOSITS EXCEEDING RS. 2 LAKHS UNDER CODE NO. 003 IS NOT TO BE GENERAL LY FURNISHED BY THE BANKS TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED ANNUAL RE TURN, LIKEWISE, OTHER CODES ALSO FOR WHICH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS WERE PRESCRI BED BY THE ACT. THIS INDICATES THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS SPECIFICALLY AS KED FOR BY THE ITO, CIB. 10. INSTEAD OF GIVING THIS SEPARATE NOTICE FOR EACH CODE, A COMMON NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR ALL THE THREE CODES. ADDL. C IT INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING ONLY ONE NOTICE BUT LEVIED P ENALTY FOR THREE NOTICES AS EXTRACTED ABOVE. THIS INDICATES THAT WITHOUT IS SUING NOTICE, THE ADDL. CIT, CIB LEVIED PENALTY THREE TIMES FOR THE SAME DE FAULT. THIS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. NOT ONLY THAT, THERE WERE VARIOUS NOTIC ES WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WHICH ARE NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSE E, THEREFORE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ALSO IS TO BE DOUBTED. AS FAR AS BANK I S CONCERNED, THEY MAINTAIN THEIR INWARD REGISTER AND LD. COUNSEL FAIR LY STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED SOME OF THE NOTICES WHICH AO IS ALLEGE D TO HAVE ISSUED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH TH E RECORDS AT PRESENT TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ISSU ED OR NOT? FOR THESE REASONS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN PENALTIES AS LE VIED BY THE ADDL. CIT. 11. NOT ONLY THAT, THE PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(C), IS SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B. SECTION 273B OF THE ACT PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION TO THE RIGID PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A BY PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT OF ASSESSEE 6 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. HAVING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE, PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN ITS CASE, ASSESSEE BEING ONLY A BRANCH OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC S ECTOR BANK WITH HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL, IT TOOK SOME TIME TO GET NECESSA RY APPROVALS AND FURTHER, BECAUSE OF THE YEAR ENDING BUSINESS AND SH ORTAGE OF STAFF, THERE WAS DELAY IN COMPLYING TO THE NOTICE. ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED TO THE NOTICES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT IN PRESCRIBED FORM AT NOR PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AS REQUIRED AND THEREFORE, PENAL TY U/S. 272A(2)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED, WHERE THERE IS BONAFIDE AND REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR NON- COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE. THE SAME WAS REITERATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROYAL METAL PRINTERS PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT (TDS) IN ITA NO. 6840/MUM/2008 DT. 29-01-2010. SIN CE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC BUT SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CAUSE, THE RE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AT LEAST. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED EARLIER AND ALSO THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTIE S LEVIED ARE CANCELLED. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHO RITIES. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME AND SINCE THE SAME ARE VITAL TO DECI DE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ADMIT THE SAME. FROM THE SUBMISSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE REVISED INFORMATION EVEN THOUGH WITH A DELAY OF 4 YEARS. LD. AR HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE SMC BENCH ON THE SIMILAR MATTER. AS HELD, THE NOTIC E U/S 133(6) IS A GENERAL NOTICE ISSUED TO COLLECT INFORMATION. THE P ENALTY U/S 272A(2)(C) IS SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273 B. AS PER THAT, IT PROVIDES THAT IN THE EVENT OF ASSESSEE HAVING A REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE, PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED. IN THE G IVEN CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED CALLING FOR INFORMATION ON 27/09/2010 AND TH E ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR ONLY ON 1 2/09/2014. BY NO MEANS, IT CAN BE CALLED AS REASONABLE. WE APPRECIAT E THE EFFORT TAKEN BY THE PRESENT BRANCH MANAGER, WHO FOLLOWED PERSONA LLY ONLY AFTER IT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE. BUT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS FROM THE BANK. IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THE CARELESS ATTITUDE OF TH E PERSONNEL IN THE REGIONAL/HEAD OFFICES. THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY IN G ETTING APPROVALS FROM THE REGIONAL/HEAD OFFICE, BUT, IT CANNOT TAKE FOUR YEARS TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. EVEN THE RESPECT IVE OFFICER IN THE 7 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD. INCOME-TAX IS BOUND TO COMPLETE CERTAIN TASK WITHIN THE REASONABLE TIME. IF THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR IS SUBMITTED AF TER 4 YEARS, THERE IS NO RELEVANCE TO THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED. IT SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE GOVT. OFFICE BY THE REPUTED BANKS. THE REASON OR ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABL E AND IN OUR VIEW, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS REASONABLE AND IT I S SUSTAINED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DECEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST DECEMBER, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) STATE BANK OF INDIA, TARUN TOWERS, 7-1-613/13, NEAR DURGA TEMPLE, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD 500 081. 2) SMT. LALITHA KARAN, H. NO. 4-5-313, SULTAN BAZAR , HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) 4, HYDERABAD 4 CIT - 4 HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS DS1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./ P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 8 ITA NO. 1485/H/14 STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYD.