The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Srinagar V. The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Srinagar

ITA 74/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1462 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 27; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (JAMMU CAMP; JAMMU ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S.KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 73, 74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2008-09& 2005-06 THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD. M.A. ROAD, SRINAGAR. PAN: AAACT6167G VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.K. GUPTA (CA.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 01.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 17.12.2015 ORDER PER T.S.KAPOOR (A.M): THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, ALL DATED 06.12. 2013. IN THESE APPEALS COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED AND THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEIN G PASSED. THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WHICH PROVIDES PROHIBITION OF REPAYMEN T OF DEPOSITS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-. 2. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDERS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BANKING COMPANY H AVING VARIOUS BRANCHES LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS IN INDIA. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271E FOR MAKING REPAYMENT OF FIXED DEPOSITS OF VARIOUS DEPOSITORS AT VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDERS AFTER NOTING DOWN THE INSTANCES OF REPAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- TO VARIOUS PERSONS HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY. BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AS UNDER: PENALTY ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE BRANCH MANAGER WHILE MAKING THE REPAYMENT IN C ASH WHICH NO DOUBT IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO SEC. 269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61 HAS CONSIDERED THE GENUINE HARDSHIP OF THE DEPOSITORS WHICH IS A REASO NABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED PRAGMATICALLY AND WHERE THE TRANSACTION IS AN OPEN TRANSACTION DONE TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF BUSINESS , IT CAN BE SAID TO BE HAVE CONSTITUTED REASONABLE CAUSE AND AS SUCH THE PENA LTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE C..271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NOT MANDATORY. THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOS ITS IN CASH TO THE 8 PERSONS IS MERELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH DEPOSITOR WAS N OT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND REPAYMENT IN CASH WAS THE ONLY MODE AVAILABLE. THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE OTHERWISE GENUINE. THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 269T IS TO T ACKLE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS AND NOT SUCH BANK TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY SAC ROSANCT AND NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TAX EVASION. THE FACT THAT FOR SOME PERSON S THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IS STILL PREFERRED IN CASH AS A MORE RELIABLE MODE OF SETTLEMENT IS A BUSINESS REALITY AND NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED BY YOUR GOODSELF UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES. PENALTY ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK REPAID IN CASH THE DEPOSITS MADE BY ABOVE NAMED PERSONS. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 69T, SUCH REPAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR D RAFT DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE NAMES. THE ABOVE ACTION IS IN VIOLATION OF THE EXPR ESS PROVISION OF LAW FOR WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 27 IE OF THE L.T. ACT. 3. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 AS DISCUSSED EARLIER NO REPLY WAS FILED ON OR UPTIL L THE FIXED DATE I.E. 20/06/2011. HOWEVER A WRITTEN REPLY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21/06/2011 WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THOUGH REPLY WAS NOT FILED IN TIME, YET IT IS BEING CONSIDERED. IN HIS REPLY, THE LD. C OUNSEL HAS ARGUED THAT THE REPAYMENT WAS MADE TO PERSONS WHO WERE NOT MAINTAIN ING BANK ACCOUNTS AND WERE IN URGENT NEED OF MONEY. THE REASONS GIVEN ARE FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES, MARRIAGE EXPENSES OR SOME URGENCY. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE B RANCH MANAGER OF THE BANK MADE THE REPAYMENT IN CASH WHEN THESE PERSONS INSIS TED ON RECEIVING THE REPAYMENT IN CASH. HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE IS CONTRAVENTIO N OF PROVISION OF SEC. 269T BUT THAT WAS FOR A REASONABLE CAUSE, IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT A MANDATORY BUT ONLY DIRECTORY U/S 27 IE OF THE L.T . ACT. PENALTY ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 THE REPAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH FOR THE REAS ON THAT THESE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT MAINTAINING ANY TYPE OF ACCOUNT WITH THE B ANK. THE BRANCH MANAGER AFTER CONSIDERING THE URGENT NEED OF THESE ELDERLY PERSONS WHO INSISTED FOR RECEIVING THE AMOUNT IN CASH MADE THE REPAYMENTS IN CASH. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF ACCOUNT OPENING FORMS OF THESE DEPOSITORS TO EVIDEN T THAT THEY WERE ELDERLY PERSONS ARE ENCLOSED FOR REFERENCED & RECORD. THE BRANCH MANAGER WHILE MAKING THE REPAYMENT IN CA SH WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO SEC.269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,196 1 HAS CONSIDERED THE GENUINE HARDSHIP OF THE DEPOSITORS WHICH IS A REASONABLE CA USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961.IT HAS BEEN IN NUMBER OF CASE LAWS THAT THE EXPRESSION REASONABLE CAUSE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED PRAGMATICALLY AND WHERE THE TRANSACTION IS AN OPEN TRANSACTION DONE TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF BUSINESS, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE CONSTITUTED 1 REASONABLE CAUSE' AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE C.271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NOT MANDATORY. THE REPAYMENTS OF DEPOSITS TO ELDERLY PERSONS ARE MERELY ON THE FACT THAT SUCH DEPOSITORS WERE NOT HA VING ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND REPAYMENT IN CASH WAS THE ONLY MODE AVAILABLE. THES E TRANSACTIONS ARE OTHERWISE GENUINE AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ACCOUNT O PENING FORMS OF ALL THESE DEPOSITORS. THE PURPOSE OFSEC.269T IS TO TACKLE BOG US TRANSACTIONS AND NOT SUCH BANK TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY SACROSANCT A ND NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TAX EVASION. THE FACT THAT FOR SUCH ELDERLY PERSONS THE REPAYMENTS OF DEPOSITS IS STILL PREFERRED IN CASH AS A MORE RELIABLE MODE OF SETTLEMENT IS A BUSINESS REALITY AND NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED BY YOUR GOODSELF UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT DESERVES TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN N O EVASION OF TAX BY THE DEPOSITORS. IT IS ONLY A VENIAL OF TECHNICAL DEFAUL T. THE PENALTY U/S 27IE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ONLY DIRECTORY. IT IS MANDA TORY WHEN SOME ATTEMPT IS MADE TO EVADE THE TAX. IN THIS REGARD THE KIND ATTE NTION IS INVITED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WI TH THE REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE IMPOSED THE PENALTIES U/ S 271E OF THE ACT. 4. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LEANED CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING SIMILAR FINDINGS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) AS CONTAINED IN HIS ORDER FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. SEC.271E DEALS WITH PENALTIES IMPOSABLE FOR FAILUR E TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269T OF THE ACT WHEREAS SEC.273B OF THE ACT PRO VIDES THAT NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID P ROVISIONS, IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SAID FAILUR E .IN CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, REASONABLE CAUSE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT LIKE MEDICA L TREATMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS ETC. OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVING NO ACCOUNT WITH ANY B ANK CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR REPAYING THE AMOUNT IN CASH. T HERE SEEMS TO BE NO BUSINESS EXIGENCY FORCING THE BRANCH MANAGER OF LAI MANDI BR ANCH OF THE APPELLANT BANK TO MAKE PAYMENTS OF 4,73,499/- TO 7 NUMBER OF DEPOSITO RS IN CASH ALL EXCEEDING RS.20000/-. THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSIT IN CONTRAVENTI ON OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.269T CANNOT BE MADE MERELY BECAUSE A DEPOSITOR DOES NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT OR EXPRESSED HIS/HER INABILITY TO OPEN THE ACCOUNT.SEC .269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT NO BANKING COMPANY [DEFINED I N SEC 269SS EXPLANATION (I)] SHALL REPAY LOAN OR DEPOSIT MADE WITH IT OTHERWISE THAN T HROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE P ERSON WHO HAS MADE THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT TOGETHER W ITH INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE THEREON IS TWENTY THOUSAND OR MORE. THE WORD USED HERE IS SHALL WHICH IS MANDATORY. SINCE THE APPELLANT BANK HAS VIOLATED PROVISIONS LAID DOW N IN SEC.269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS SUCH PROVISIONS OF SEC.27IE ARE VERY MUCH AT TRACTED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON SUCH VIOLATION. I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT PENALTY U/S 271E AMOUNTING TO RS.4,73,499/-HAS RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED BY THE AO. 4 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BANKING COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING FIXED D EPOSITS FROM VARIOUS DEPOSITORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESS EE HAD REPAID CERTAIN FIXED DEPOSITS IN CASH BUT THE REPAYMENTS WERE MADE UNDER PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES 5. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 SUCH AS FEW OF DEPOSITORS HAD NO BANK ACCOUNT, AND FEW OF THEM WERE ELDERLY PEOPLE AND FEW OF THEM REQUIRED CASH FOR MEDICAL PU RPOSES ETC. AND THEREFORE, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE TO BRANCH MANAGER FO R REPAYMENT OF SUCH DEPOSITS WAS TO PAY THEM IN CASH. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT BRANCH MANAGER OF VARIOUS BRANCHES OF BANK ON THE BASIS OF GENUINE HARDSHIPS FACED BY DEPOSITORS HAD ALLOWED REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CAS H AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 T. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07 ALSO SIMILAR P ENALTIES WERE IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELE TED VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07.10.2011 AND AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS NOT F ILED ANY APPEAL. IN THIS RESPECT, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAG E 1 TO 4 WHERE A COPY OF ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 WAS PLACED. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 5 TO 12 WHERE UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HA D DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 269T IN THE CASE OF FARIDKOT BATHINDHA KSHETRIYA G RAMIN BANK VS. JCIT (2003) 81 TTJ (ASR) 705. THE LEANED AR ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO CASE LAWS OF CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE 277 ITR 420 PLACED A T PAPER BOOK PAGE 13 TO 17 DECIDED BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WHE REIN THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD DELETED THE PENALTY IMP OSED U/S 271 E OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS PRAYED THAT PENALTIES IMPOSED M AY BE DELETED. 6. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIE D UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY ASS ESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AND THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRME D THE SAME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE REPAYMENTS OF FIXED DEPOSITS IN VIOLATION OF PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269T AND THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT IN ASST. YEAR 2007-08 REPAY MENTS WERE MADE TO SUCH DEPOSITORS WHO HAD NO SAVING BANKS ACCOUNT AS IT AP PARENT FROM THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) HIMSELF. IN ASST YEAR 2005-06, TH E REPAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SEVEN PERSONS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC REQUEST LETTERS FROM DEPOSITORS WHO REQUIRED THE CASH FOR MARRIAGE OF CHILDREN/ REPAIRS OF HOUSE OR FOR NON MAINTENANCE OF SAVINGS BANK ACCOUN T. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE. IN ASST. YEAR 2008-09, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT REQUEST LETTERS BY DEPOSITORS WERE UNVERIFIED AND UNCERTIFI ED AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PIECE OF EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT REPAYMENTS IN CASH FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES/MARRIAGE EXPENSES WERE NOT A REASO NABLE CAUSE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE REPAYMENTS REPRESENTED GEN UINE TRANSACTIONS AND NO CLAIM OF BOGUS TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN MADE BY REVENU E AUTHORITIES. THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCTION OF THESE SECTIONS IN THE LE GISLATURE WERE TO CURB BLACK MONEY AND BENAMI TRANSACTIONS. THE PURPOSE OF LEGI SLATURE WAS NEVER TO IMPOSE PENALTY IN CASE OF GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 271E CONFER DISCRETION ON AUTHORITIES TO LEVY OR NO T TO LEVY PENALTY AND SUCH DISCRETION NEEDS TO BE EXERCISED WITH WISDOM AND IN A FARE AND JUST MANNER. EVEN IF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW PRESCRIBE TH E LEVY OF PENALTY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PENALTY MUST NECESSARILY BE IMPOSED IN EV ERY CASE FALLING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T. EVEN IF PENALTIES ARE P RESCRIBED THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE HON BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE FARIDKOT BATHINDHA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK VS. JCIT (2003) 81TTJ(ASR)705, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES HAS HELD AS UNDER. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PRODUCED EVIDENCE REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE DEP OSITORS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT IMPEACHED THE TRANSACTI ON AS NON-GENUINE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO NOT HE CASE OF DEPARTMENT THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE BENAMI. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT CAN BE SAFELY HELD THAT THE BONA FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE, AS PROVIDED UNDER S. 273B. THE RE PAYMENTS WERE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND THERE WAS NO MENS REA ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME WHEN THE REPAYMENTS WERE MADE. SIMILARLY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. SAINI MEDICAL STORE 277 ITR 420 (P&H) HAS HELD AS UNDER: A COMBINED READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 271E A ND 273B MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR T HE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION REFERRED THERETO, THE PENALTY FO R ITS VIOLATION SHALL NOT BE IMPOSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY HAD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FI DE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO AVOID OR EVADE THE TAX. THE 8. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEA L BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269T IS A FINDING OF FACT BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED. IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DOUBTE D THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND HAS IMPOSED & UPHELD THE PENALTIES HOLDING THAT THE REASONS FOR REPAYMENT AS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE DID NOT CONS TITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN DIFFERENT YEARS THE VIOLATI ON HAS BEEN MADE BY DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE BANK & THE VIOLATION HAS NOT BEEN R EPEATED. IN ASST. YEAR 2008-09, THE VIOLATION WAS BY BULBUL NOWGAM, L.D. H OSPITAL & ISLAMIA COLLEGE BRANCHES & IN ASST. YEAR 2007-08, THE VIOLATION WAS BY LAL MANDI BRANCH WHEREAS IN ASST. YEAR 2005-06, THE VIOLATION WAS BY LAL BAZAR BRANCH. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HIMSELF IN ASST. Y EAR 2006-07 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SIMILAR FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT NO MENS REA IS INVOLVED AS THE VI OLATION IS NOT INTENTIONAL. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES AND IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATURE INTENTION OF INTRODUCING THESE PENAL PR OVISIONS & ALSO IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED AR, WE HOLD THAT PENALTIES ARE NOT IMPOSABLE IN THESE CASES. 9. ITA NOS.7 3,74 & 75(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 & 2005-06 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD /- (A.D.JAIN) (T.S.KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17.12.2015 PK/PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.