TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l these appeals, which is reproduced hereunder: "1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 49,800 levied by the Assessing Officer U/s 272(A)(2)(c)." 2. Since, common issues are involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are being heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, common order is being passed. 3. In all these appeals, there are only one common issue, which is against confirmation of penalty U/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). A notice U/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhawani Mandi, Kota, Rajasthan by the ITO (Intelligence), Kota on 11/06/2012 wherein the information under the Code 003....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and the reason given for no-compliance of the notices served on him. I have particularly noted the fact that the appellant had ignored the notice sent U/s 133(6) of the Act on several. It is only after the appellant is slapped with penalty notice that he had responded with the required information. Therefore, it is my considered view that the appellant's reason for non-compliance of notices served on him U/s 133(6) of the Ace is in unconvincing. Therefore, the JDIT's orders of levying penalty for Rs. 49,800/- each under various codes with regard to Appeal No. 259/14-15, 260/14-15 and 261/14-15 under section 272A(2)(c) of the Act are sustained. Accordingly, appellant's ground of appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e required information could not be extracted I generated at the branch level as this needed software support and permission of the Head Office / Regional Office for preparation and extraction of the data from the software. This information, after getting the support and permission of the Head Office I Regional Office, was finally extracted I generated in November, 2013 and was immediately furnished to the AO on 20.11.2013. There was thus a reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the required information in response to the Notice issued under section 133(6). The delay was not intentional or willful and penalty imposed by the AO under section 272A(2)(c) was not justified. The following favourable case law was cited : (a) (i) State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. Copy of the judgment is attached herewith as Annexure II. 2.2 The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of CIT v. Superintending Engineer (2003) 260 ITR 641 (Raj-HC), has made the following observations: "The Apex Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1973) 83 ITR 26 (SC) has observed that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Apex Court further observed that penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "9. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel of the assessee, I am of the opinion that there is no need for levy of penalty in the given cases. First of all, the notice issued u/s. 133(6) is a general notice asking for 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 Act also prescribes various limits for furnishing information on a regular basis 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 format may be on the strength of i....