BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JHALAWAR V. JDIT (I & CI), Jaipur

ITA 337/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2047 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUKAR GARG
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

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 NOS. 337 TO 339/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, BHAWANI MANDI, JHALAWAR. CUKE VS. JDIT, (I&CI), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABRPG 6864 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUKAR GARG (CA). JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF HEARING : 22/06/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/06/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07/02/2017 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THERE ARE ONLY ONE C OMMON ISSUE, WHICH IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(C) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) OF RS. 50,400/- EACH FOR DELAY I N FURNISHING INFORMATION UNDER THE VARIOUS CODES ASKED BY ISSUING NOTICE BY THE ITO (INTELLIGENCE), KOTA U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. ITA 337 TO 339/JP/2017_ BRANCH MANAGER, SBBJ VS. JDIT(I&CI) 2 2. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APP EALS, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN LEVIED FOR NON-COMPLI ANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, THIS BRANCH OFFICE OF THE SBBJ WAS LOCATED IN BHAWANI MANDI IN THE DISTRICT OF JHALA WAR IN A REMOTE AREA. THERE WAS NO PERMANENT POSTING OF THE BRANCH MANAGER DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. SINCE THE REGULAR BRANCH MANAGER TOOK CHARG E, THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ITO (INTELLIGENCE), KOTA. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THEREAFTER THERE IS NO NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTIC ES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE NON-COMPLIANCE WAS NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE. IT WAS D UE TO NON POSTING OF THE PERMANENT BRANCH MANAGER AND NOT READILY AVAILA BILITY OF THE SOFTWARE FOR COMPILATION OF SUCH INFORMATION. THEREFORE, THE DELA Y WAS NOT WILLFUL AND THE PENALTY MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A(2)(C) OF THE ACT MAY BE SUSTAINED. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF THE ITA 337 TO 339/JP/2017_ BRANCH MANAGER, SBBJ VS. JDIT(I&CI) 3 AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. THE ITO (INTELLIGEN CE) , KOTA ASKED THE INFORMATION FROM THE BRANCH BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT. DURING THIS RELEVANT PERIOD, THERE WAS NO PERMANENT POSTING OF BRANCH MANAGER IN THAT BRANCH. THE BRANCH WAS NOT HAVING ADEQUATE SOFT WARE TO COMPILE SUCH INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE NON-COMPLIA NCE WAS NOT WILLFUL BUT IT WAS DUE TO LACK OF REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAN P OWER. DURING THE PERIOD, SUCH DIFFICULTIES WERE BEING FACED BY THE BRANCHES L OCATED IN THE REMOTE AREAS OF JHALAWAR DISTRICT. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIE W, THE NON-COMPLIANCE WAS DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED. IT WAS ALSO STATED DURING THE HEARING TH AT THERE IS NO NON- COMPLIANCE OF ANY NOTICE SUBSEQUENT TO THESE NOTICE S. THE NOTICES ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN TIME. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIE D U/S 272A(2)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/06/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ TK;IQJ TK;IQJ TK;IQJ@ @@ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23 RD JUNE, 2017 ITA 337 TO 339/JP/2017_ BRANCH MANAGER, SBBJ VS. JDIT(I&CI) 4 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE BRANCH MANAGER, SSBJ, BHAWANIMAND I, JHALAWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE JDIT, (I&CI), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 337 TO 339/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR