UNION BANK OF INDIA, BAPU NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

ITA 505/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2084 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Residential status; Rectification of order; Non-deduction of tax; Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 273B; 201(1); 194A; 27; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S BJAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 UNION BANK OF INDIA, BAPU NAGAR BRANCH, SB-57, RIDDHI TOWER, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACU0564G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY KHANDELWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/03/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/04/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 04. 02.2019 FOR A.YS 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. S INCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN TAKEN, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER A ND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271C AS PE R THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT(TDS) DATED 22.03.2016 AND IGNORANCE OF RECTIFIED ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT(TDS) DATED 23.11 .2016. ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 2 3. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR A.Y 2009-10 TO A .Y 2013-14 U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT DATED 22.03.2016 WHER EIN THE DEMAND WAS CREATED DUE TO NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON S UBMISSION OF FORM NO. 15G/15H IN CASES WHERE INTEREST PAID EXCEE DS BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEES BANK HAD APPLIED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER AND ORDER U/S 154 WAS PA SSED BY THE DCIT(TDS) DATED 23.11.2016 WHEREIN THE DEMAND WAS R EDUCED AS PER PARTICULARS BELOW: ASSESSMENT YEAR ORIGINAL DEMAND (RS) REVISED DEMAND (RS) 2010-11 31,486/- 23,688/- 2011-12 43,051/- 23,886/- 2012-13 30,855/- 30,885/- 2013-14 73,344/- 37,750/- 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDL.CIT(TDS) WHILE LE VYING THE PENALTY U/S 271C HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION T HE RECTIFICATION ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO AND THE PENALTY U/S 271C HAS BEEN LEVIED BASIS THE ORIGINAL ORDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 WHERE PASSED, REPLACES THE ORIGINAL ORDER A ND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN IGNORANCE OF FACT OF RECTIFICATION WAS A GAINST THE LAW AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE THAT UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 3 BRANCH OF THE SAME BANK, PENALTY U/S 271C THOUGH IN ITIATED BUT WAS DROPPED BY THE ADDL.CIT(TDS). 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF VISHVESHWARIYA NAGAR BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE BANK, SIMILAR SHOW CAUSE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271C WAS ISSUED BY THE SAME AUTHORITY I.E ADDL. CIT(TDS) PURSUANT TO LEVY OF DEMAND DUE TO NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUBMISSION OF FORM NO. 15G/15H IN CASES WHERE INTER EST PAID EXCEEDS BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASS ESSEE BANK SUBMITTED SIMILAR SUBMISSION AND TAKING THE SAME IN TO CONSIDERATION, THE PENALTY 271C OF THE ACT WAS DROP PED BY PASSING A SPECIFIC ORDER BY THE ADDL.CIT(TDS) DATED 19.10.201 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE SAME AUTHORITY HAS DROPPED TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF VISHVESHWARIYA NAGAR BRANCH, THERE IS NO BASIS TO LEVY THE PENALTY IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER BR ANCH OF THE SAME BANK, I.E, BAPU NAGAR BRANCH WHERE THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT IN THE EYES OF INCOME TA X DEPARTMENT, ALL THE UNITS/BRANCHES OF UNION BANK OF INDIA ARE A SIN GLE ENTITY, AS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/ S 201(1) READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) AND WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ADDL.CIT(TDS) WHILE PASSING TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS U/S 271C OF THE ACT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAME TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE CASE OF UNION BANK OF INDIA, BAPU NAGAR BRANCH AND PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED. 7. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271C RAISING THE PLEA THAT IT HAS AC TED IN GOOD FAITH, ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 4 BONA FIDE BELIEF AND WITHOUT ANY MALE FIDE INTENTIO N IN RELYING ON THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEPOSITORS IN FORM NO. 15G/15H. 8. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR T HAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AS STATED BY THE ADDL.C IT(TDS) WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY IS THAT DECLARATIONS IN FORM N O. 15G/15H WERE NOT PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE ITSELF STARTED WITH NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUBMISSION OF FORM 15G/15H AS S TATED BY THE AO IN HIS ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 22.03.2016. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT THES E FORMS/DECLARATIONS HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CUSTOME RS, NO QUESTION ARISES FOR PROVIDING THE SAME IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271C OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FORM NO. 15G/15H IS A DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMER FOR NON DED UCTION OF TDS AND THE BANK HAS DEDUCTED TDS IN ALL CASES ACCEPT W HERE THESE DECLARATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMERS. IT WA S ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH UND ER BONA FIDE BELIEF AND WITHOUT ANY MALA FIDE INTENTION BY RELYI NG ON THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMERS. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 15G/15H IS ITSEL F A GENUINE CAUSE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS BECAUSE IT IS SELF DECLARA TION FORM PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX RULES AND THE PERSON SIGNING THE SAME IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION. IN SUPPORT , RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF L& T JOHN DEERE (P) LTD VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 120 ITD 497 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BONA FIDE EXPLANA TION FOR FAILURE ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 5 OF DEDUCTION OF TDS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE MAD E LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271C FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TDS. 9. FURTHER, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE PROVISIO NS OF SUB- SECTION (1C) OF SECTION 197A AND IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT WHERE THE SAID PROVISION READ ALONG WITH SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTION 197A AND RULE 29C, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT IN A CASE OF A S ENIOR CITIZEN WHO IS RESIDENT OF INDIA, TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DED UCTED FROM PAYMENTS U/S 194A ON THE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO. 15H EVEN OF THE AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED EXCEEDS THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT. IN PRESENT CASE, THE SMT. PREM LATA BHATEJA, WHOSE DAT E OF BIRTH WAS 10.01.1948 AS PER PAN DATABASE, WAS A SENIOR CITIZE N DURING F.Y 2012-13 AND 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY, THEREFORE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW THE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY WIT H REFERENCE TO THE INTEREST PAYMENT TO SMT. PREM LATA BHATEJA AS THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS SINCE SHE HAS SUBMITTED FORM 15H AND BASIS WHICH, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO HE R DURING THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN ABS ENCE OF ANY TDS LIABILITY, THERE IS NO BASIS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 27 1C OF THE ACT. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF DEMAND REDUCED BY THE AO AND HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDE RATION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 23. 11.2016 AND THE PENALTY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED CORRESPONDING TO REVISED DEMAND AS PER ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSEESSEE S APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT MER ELY RELYING ON THE DECLARATION SO SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMERS IN FO RM NO. 15G/15H CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AND THE ASSESSEE BANK ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 6 IS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN BASIC DUE DILIGENC E WHILE ACCEPTING SUCH DECLARATION AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE INTEREST SO PAID OR CREDITED EXCEEDS BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AS PROVID ED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AS SESSEE BANK CANNOT BE ABSOLVED OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT/CREDIT OF INTEREST TO ITS CUSTOMERS. FURTHE R, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ADDL.CIT(TDS) AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 271C OF THE ACT PROVID ES THAT IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO DEDUCT WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED, THEN HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM E QUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT. AT THE SAME TIME, SECTION 273B OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDI NG THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE ACT, NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE UPON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY F AILURE REFERRED TO IN THE AFORESAID PROVISION IF THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED PROVES THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAIL URE. HERE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ELI LILLY & CO. (INDIA) (P.) LTD. [2009] 178 TAXMAN 505 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 271C INTER ALIA STATES THAT IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII-B THEN SUCH PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUN T OF TAX WHICH SUCH PERSON FAILED TO DEDUCT. IN THESE CASES WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SECTION 271C(1)(A). THUS SECTION 271 C(1)(A) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY LEVIABLE SHALL BE E QUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH SUCH PERSON FAILED TO DEDUCT. W E CANNOT HOLD THIS PROVISION TO BE MANDATORY OR COMPENSATORY OR ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 7 AUTOMATIC BECAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B PARLIAMENT HAS ENACTED THAT PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED IN CASES FALLING THERE UNDER. SECTION 271C FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF SUCH CASES. SECTION 273B STATES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING C ONTAINED IN SECTION 271C, NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IF SUCH PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY TO LEVY OF PENALTY CAN BE FASTENED ONLY ON THE PERSON WHO DO NOT HAVE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. ONLY THOSE PERSONS WILL BE LIABLE TO PENALTY WHO DO NOT HAVE G OOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX.' 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS CONT ENDED THAT IT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED BY ITS C USTOMERS IN FORM 15G/15H, AND BASIS SUCH DECLARATIONS, THE TAX HAS N OT BEEN DEDUCTED AT THE TIME OF CREDIT/PAYMENT OF SUCH INTE REST TO RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. TO OUR MIND, THE ASSESSEE BANK IS EXPEC TED TO CARRY OUT BASIC VERIFICATION OF SUCH DECLARATIONS BEFORE THE SAME ARE ACCEPTED AND SIMILARLY, WHERE THE INTEREST PAID/CREDITED EXC EEDS THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, SUCH DECLARATIONS SHOULDNT FORM THE BASIS FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS A S THE SAME WOULD NOT BE IN CONSONANCE WITH ASSESSEES BANK OBL IGATION UNDER SECTION 194A READ WITH SECTION 197A(IB) WHICH OVERR IDES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A(IA) OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, IN TERMS OF SECTION 197A(1C), IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THA T NO DEDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL RESI DENT IN INDIA, WHO IS OF THE AGE OF SIXTY YEARS OR MORE AT ANY TIME DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH INDIVIDUAL FURNISHES TO THE PERSON RE SPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY INCOME OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO SECTION 194A, A DECLARATION IN ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 8 WRITING IN DUPLICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VER IFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TAX ON HIS ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INCOME IS TO BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCOME WILL BE NIL. 14. COMING TO THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSI DERATIONS, THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS RELIED ON THE DECLARATION IN FORM 15G FURNISHED BY SHRI VIMAL MEHTA FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND IN FORM 15H FURNISHED BY SMT PREM LATA BHATEJA WHO IS OVER SIXTY YEARS OF AGE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY AND HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX WHILE CREDITI NG/PAYING THE INTEREST IN THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS. THEREF ORE, AS FAR AS PAYMENT/CREDIT OF INTEREST TO SMT PREM LATA BHATEJA WHO IS OVER SIXTY YEARS OF AGE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 012-13 AND 2013- 14, IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A(1C), THE RE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-DEDUCTING THE TDS AND THE ASSESSEE BA NK CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH THE PENALTY U/S 271C OF THE ACT. 15. IN RESPECT OF SHRI VIMAL MEHTA FOR FINANCIAL YE AR 2010-11 AND 2011-12, GIVEN THAT THE INTEREST PAID/CREDITED EXCE EDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS IN TERMS OF SECTION 194A OF THE ACT R/W PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197A(1B) OF THE ACT. THE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IS THAT IT HAS AGAIN RELIED ON THE DE CLARATION SO FURNISHED BY THE CUSTOMER WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF AND WITHOUT ANY MALA FIDE INTENTION BY RELYING ON T HE DECLARATION SO SUBMITTED BY THE CUSTOMER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E RECEIPT OF DECLARATION IS ITSELF A GENUINE CAUSE FOR NON DEDUC TION OF TDS BECAUSE IT IS SELF DECLARATION FORM PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX RULES ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 9 AND THE PERSON SIGNING THE SAME IS EXPECTED TO PROV IDE CORRECT INFORMATION. TO OUR MIND, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INFORMATION SO PROVIDED IN THE DECLARATION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY O F THE CUSTOMER WHO IS FURNISHING SUCH DECLARATION AND WHERE THE ASSESS EE BANK RELIES ON SUCH DECLARATION, NO FAULT CAN LIE SOLELY WITH THE ASSESSEE BANK EXCEPT THAT CERTAIN BASIS VERIFICATION IS EXPECTED WHILE ACCEPTING SUCH DECLARATIONS AND UPLOADING THE SAME IN BANK IT SYSTEM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE THEREFORE FIND THAT WHERE THE ASSE SSEE BANK HAS RELIED ON THE DECLARATION SO FURNISHED BY THE CUSTO MER, THERE IS NO MALAFIDE WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSEE BANK IN NOT DEDUCTING THE TDS AND THE ASSESSEE BANK CANNOT BE F ASTENED WITH THE PENALTY U/S 271C. 16. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADD. CIT (TDS) HAS DROPPED THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 19.10.2016 IN CASE OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE SAME BANK AND THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD WHICH REFLECTS THE BASIS FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN T HE CASE OF PRESENT BRANCH OF THE SAME BANK WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED ON 12.01.2017. NO DOUBT TH E DISCRETION TO LEVY THE PENALTY OR TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ENTIRELY THE DISCRETION OF THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WHO IS AUTH ORIZED UNDER THE STATUTE, HOWEVER, WHERE IN CASE OF SAME BANK, DIFFE RENT APPROACH IS ADOPTED BY THE SAME AUTHORITY IN EXERCISE OF ITS PO WERS SO BESTOWED BY THE STATUTORY, THE SAME REFLECT ARBITRARINESS IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO HIGHLIGHT ED AND ANY SUCH ARBITRARY LEVY OF PENALTY REFLECTS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY SUCH AUTHORITY AND PENALTY SO LEVIED IS LIABLE TO BE DEL ETED. ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019 UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR VS. ADDL. CIT-TDS, JAI PUR 10 17. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE EXIST A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON DEDUCTI NG THE TDS BY THE ASSESSEE BANK AND THE PENALTY SO LEVIED FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BANK AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/04/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/04/2020. *GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- UNION BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ADDL. CIT (TDS), JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA. NO. 505, 506, 565 & 507/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR