Tribunal overturns penalty against bank for TDS non-deduction, emphasizes good faith.

The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee bank, concluding that there was a reasonable cause for the bank's failure to deduct TDS. The penalty imposed under Section 271C was deleted, with the tribunal finding that the bank acted in good faith and relied on customer declarations submitted in Form No. 15G/15H. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistent treatment of penalties between different branches of the same bank and held that ignoring the rectified order passed under Section 154 while imposing the penalty was against the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271C.
2. Non-consideration of rectified order passed under Section 154.
3. Inconsistent treatment of penalty between different branches of the same bank.
4. Good faith and bona fide belief in relying on declarations submitted in Form No. 15G/15H.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty Imposed under Section 271C:
The assessee challenged the confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271C, arguing that the penalty was based on the original order passed by the ACIT(TDS) without considering the subsequent rectified order. The tribunal noted that Section 271C imposes a penalty for failure to deduct tax as required, but Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed if there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd., which held that penalty under Section 271C is not automatic and can be waived if there is a reasonable cause.

2. Non-Consideration of Rectified Order Passed under Section 154:
The assessee argued that the rectified order under Section 154, which reduced the demand, was not considered while imposing the penalty. The tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the rectification order replaces the original order, and ignoring it while imposing the penalty was against the law.

3. Inconsistent Treatment of Penalty Between Different Branches of the Same Bank:
The assessee contended that another branch of the same bank had a similar case where the penalty under Section 271C was dropped by the same authority. The tribunal agreed, stating that the same treatment should have been applied to the Bapu Nagar Branch. The tribunal emphasized that different treatment of identical cases reflects arbitrariness and non-application of mind, making the penalty liable to be deleted.

4. Good Faith and Bona Fide Belief in Relying on Declarations Submitted in Form No. 15G/15H:
The assessee argued that it acted in good faith and bona fide belief by relying on the declarations submitted by customers in Form No. 15G/15H. The tribunal noted that the bank is expected to carry out basic verification of such declarations. However, it found that the bank acted without malafide intention and relied on the declarations provided by the customers. The tribunal concluded that the bank had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS and should not be penalized under Section 271C.

Specific Transactions:
The tribunal examined specific transactions, including declarations by Shri Vimal Mehta and Smt. Prem Lata Bhateja. It found that for Smt. Prem Lata Bhateja, who was over sixty years of age, the bank had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS based on the provisions of Section 197A(1C). For Shri Vimal Mehta, the tribunal acknowledged the bank's reliance on customer declarations and found no malafide intention, thus directing the deletion of the penalty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the bank's failure to deduct TDS, and the penalty imposed under Section 271C should be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the matter was decided in favor of the assessee bank and against the Revenue.

---