TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pliance to the requirements of summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act dated 12.09.2007 when each and every date of hearing was attended by the Authorised Representative and thereafter another modified summon was issued on 12.10.2007 in respect of same requirements thereby merging summon dated 12.09.2007 which had automatically become in-fructuous in light of the issuance of new summon dated 12.10.2007. 3. That without prejudice in any view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) should have appreciated that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act in alleged non-compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, there was no justification in the levy of penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." ITA No.- 3511/Del/2012 "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act foi reasonable cause for the delay in complying with the requirements made by summon issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. In para 2.1 of the penalty order the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax has set out the brief facts of the case as reported to him by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter in para 2.2 he has extracted the reply of the appellant submitted to him in response to his show cause notice dated 30.01.2009. Thereafter the para 3.1 to para 3.5, the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax has reached to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to discharge his legal obligations and the non-compliance of the assessee is visible on the record itself and thereafter he has proceeded to levy penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant for failure to comply with the requirements called for vide summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The appellant filed a written submissions. The relevant portion, setting out the facts of the case reads as follow:- The brief facts of the case are that in this case during the course of the assessment proceedings summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the L'd Assessing Officer on 12.09.2007 calling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re also in progress and in the intervening period between 12.10.2007 to 26.12.2007, i.e. the last date of hearing of the case various notices were issued by the L'd Assessing Officer including summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act on 23.10.2007 and again on 04.12.2007 calling for further information required for the purposes of assessment and it will very well be appreciated that the preparation of details which were called for through summon of the L'd Assessing Officer on 12.10.2007, for non- compliance of which penalty has been levied, was not only the job which was entrusted with the appellant company and he had to look after all the aspects of the assessment and furnishing of the details which were called for from time to time, (copies of the notices and summon are enclosed herewith). Further, as regards calling for the information on print out mode, all along since the issue of the summon the appellant had asked the L'd Assessing Officer as whether he was prepared to accept the details in the print out for but he kept on insisting the same to be on CD format only. Because of the: reservations the appellant submitted the details which were called for by the L'd Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings which were getting barred by limitation on 31.12.2007 and also some time was required for preparation of the return for the A.Y. 2007-08 which was to be filed by 31st October and since the information which was called for by the Assessing Officer vide summon issued on 12.10.2007 was at a very late stage, assimilation of the information called for vide summon could not be made by the appellant due to paucity of time and, therefore, there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act with the appellant in making only part compliance in respect of the information called for vide summon issued by the Assessing Officer. 9. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it was prayed by the appellant that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the penalty should be cancelled. 10. I have considered the submission given by the appellant as well as the observation of the Assessing Officer. The contention of the appellant that the details asked by the Assessing Officer was voluminous and had to be collected and assimilated may be true but this does not absolve the appellant of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the L'd Assessing Officer on 12.09.2007 calling for certain information with reference to deposits on CD format. The appellant objected to the calling for information on the CD format and, therefore, on 12.10.2007 another summon was issued calling for the same information in respect of collections and repayments of deposit in print out form. The appellant company is a Residuary Non-Banking Company. During the year it has mobilized deposits to tune of Rs. 6,391.65 crores through the services of its agent M/s Sahara India spread over 1500 branches and this amount represented collections made from about 3 crore depositors. The L'd Assessing Officer required the appellant to furnish branch-wise details of collections sorting out payments received in cash and by cheque and similar details in respect of branch-wise repayment of deposits giving repayment by cheques and cash. The appellant, as already stated herein above, is operating through its Agent M/s Sahara India which, in turn is operating from 1500 branches spread a over the country. As far as the appellant is concerned, a consolidated statement is bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmat only. Because of these reservations the appellant submitted the details which were called for by the L'd Assessing Officer in respect of 70 branches. The L'd Assessing Officer thereafter treated the appellant to be in default in respect of non-submission of details of the balance branches and has levied penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Another factor which has to be taken in to consideration is that part compliance of the same has been made by the appellant and, therefore, the same cannot be equated with non-compliance and the appellant should not have been visited with the penalty under section 272A(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In any view of the matter because of the circumstances narrated herein above it will further be appreciated that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Income Tax Act with the appellant for no' being able to make full compliance of the detail called for vide summon under section 131 of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, also the penalty deserves to be cancelled. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following cases Hindustan Stee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was voluminous and had to be collected and assimilated may be true but this does not absolve the appellant of the fact that it did not comply with the requirements made by the Assessing Officer. When the accounts are maintained on computer then the contention that the information was voluminous cannot be taken as an alibi for not furnishing the same. It hardly takes a few minutes to print the information and even if it is to be collected from various branches the same can be retrieved in few minutes by receiving it through Emails. The Assessing Officer in the penalty order has mentioned the various dates on which the appellant was required to furnish the information. Yet the appellant did not comply with the notices. It is further observed that the appellant did not submit the details in hard copy which would have exhibited its sincerity in complying with the notices if it was not possible to submit in a CD as required by the Assessing Officer. The appellant had submitted the details of only 70 branches as against 1500 maintained b; it. Considering these facts the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed u/s 272A(l)(c is upheld. 11. In result, the appeal is dismissed." (C) The present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that partial compliance was made to the aforesaid subsequent summons dated 12.10.2007. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied on order dated 23.05.2008 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi, in ITA No. 581, 586 to 589/Del/2006 for Assessment Years 1999-00, 2001-02 & 2002-03 wherein Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi had deleted penalty levied U/s 272A(1)(c) of I.T. Act. He also took us through the contents of the Paper Book; and contended that the penalties levied U/s 272A(1)(c) of I.T. Act for Assessment Year 2005-06, which are the subject matter of the present appeal before us should also be deleted. However, the Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR", for short) submitted that the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi is distinguishable because in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008 it was held by ITAT that the assessee had not omitted to produce the books of accounts or documents; whereas in the facts and circumstances of the appeals before us, the assessee had failed to file all the details, and details were only partially submitted in the form of printouts. The Ld. Counsel for assessee also admitted that....