BHAGCHAND, A.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the common order dated 04/01/2017 of Ld. CIT(A), Alwar, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. There is common issue involved in all these appeals and the ld. CIT(A) has decided the same in his combined order. The assessee has taken common grounds in all 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).

ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 2

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). A notice U/s 133(6) of the was issued to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhawani Mandi, Kota, Rajasthan by theO (Intelligence), Kota on 11/06/2012 wherein the information under the Code 003 transaction code 403, information under the Code 007 transaction code 410 and information under the Code 006 transaction code 409 for F.Y. 2011- 12 to be furnished by 09/07/2012. The assessee did not furnish the information in compliance to the notice U/s 133(6) of the dated 11/6/2012. However, the compliance was made after a delay of 498 days from the date prescribed in the notice U/s 133(6) of the i.e. 09/07/2012. The Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Jaipur imposed penalty for non compliance of notice for furnishing the information under the different codes separately.

4. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties levied for all the three years by holding as under:- ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 3

5.3 I have considered the orders passed by the JDIT(I&CI) and submissions filed by the appellant. The following facts have been emerged;

1. That a notice under section 133(6) of thewas issued by theO (Intelligence), Kota on 11/06/2012 to file required information by 09/07/2012. The notice remain un-complied

2. That a penalty notice U/s 272A(2)(c) of the was issued 25/10/2013. In response to the notice, the appellant has submitted the information on 20/11/2013.

3. That the JDIT(I&CI) Jaipur has levied penalty of Rs. 49,800/- each for F.Y. 2012-13 with respect to Code 006 and transaction code 409, Code 007 and transaction code 410, Code 003 and transaction code 403 and totaling to Rs. ,49,400/- under section 272A(2)(c) of the.

5.3.2. 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 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 appellants reason for non-compliance of notices served on him U/s 133(6) of the Ace is in unconvincing. Therefore, the JDITs 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 theare sustained. Accordingly, appellants ground of appeals on this issue are dismissed.

ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 4

5. Now the assessee is in appeals before theAT. While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted as under:- 1.1 A Notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was issued to the appellant Bank by the Id. ITO (Intelligence), Kota, on 11.06.2012, for furnishing information under the following Codes, by 09.07.2012 : S. No. Code No. Transaction Code Information called for

1. 003 403 Time deposits exceeding Rs 2 lakhs with banking company.

2. 006 409 Payment in cash for purchase of bank drafts or pay orders or bankers cheques from a banking company of an amount aggregating to Rs. 1,00,000 or more

3. 007 410 Deposit in cash aggregating Rs. 2,00,000 or more, with banking company during any one day. The Bank could not furnish the required information in time.

1.2 Thereafter, three separate Penalty Notices, dated 25.10.2013, under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued by the Id. JDIT (I & CI), Jaipur, for non-furnishing of the information under the aforesaid three Codes.

1.3 After receiving the Penalty Notices, the appellant Bank furnished the required information, which was after a delay of 498 days.

1.4 The submissions made by the Appellant Bank before the Id. CIT (Appeals) are reproduced on Pg. Nos. 5 & 6 of the Appeal Order and are summarized below. The 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 ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 5 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 Bank of India, NTPC Branch, Karimnagar District v. Addl. CIT (Int.), Hyderabad (ITAT Hyderabad); ITA. No. 1465/Hyd/2014. (ii) State Bank of India, Metpalle Branch, Karimnagar District v. Addl. CIT (Int.), Hyderabad (ITAT Hyderabad); ITA. No.1468/Hyd/2014. Copy of the Composite Order, dated 30.04.2015, is enclosed as Annexure IA. (b) Allahabad Bank, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur v. Income Tax Officer (Intelligence)/Jt. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence), Kanpur; (ITAT Lucknow). Copy of the Order, 28.07.2015, is enclosed as Annexure IB.

1.5 The Appellant Bank is a public office and the default of this nature ought to be considered liberally. It has been provided in section 273B that in case a person establishes or proves that he had reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions, then no penalty shall be imposable on such person for the said failure. It has been held in several judicial pronouncements that where there was a case of reasonableness, there was no merit in levying the penalty under section 272A(2).

1.6 However, the Id. JDIT (I & CI), Jaipur has levied a penalty of Rs.49,800 each for the aforesaid three Codes by passing three separate Penalty Orders. ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 6

2.1 In Syndicate Bank v. Addl. CIT (2015) Tax Pub(DT) 3614 (Hyd-Trib), the Honble Tribunal opined that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance to the Notice. Considering the facts of the case and also the law on the subject, the penalties levied under section 272A(2)(c) were cancelled. Copy of the judgment is attached herewith as Annexure II.

2.2 The Honble 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 to do so. The powers are to be exercised judiciously. The Apex Court held as follows: "Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." Thus, the penalty under section 272A(2)(c) cannot be levied in a routine manner. The discretion vested with the authority is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A bona fide breach cannot lead to a penalty under section 272A(2)(c).

3.1 As stated in the Penalty Order, the Notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was issued ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 7 to the appellant Bank by the Id. ITO (Intelligence), Kota, on 11.06.2012, for furnishing information under three Codes.

3.2 Rule 114E does not cover the information called for. Notice under section 133(6) was general in nature and was not in the domain of the Id. ITO (Intelligence), Kota. The following excerpts from the judgment in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) bring out the exact legal position in this regard:

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 theO, 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 nor supported by the Boards circular. This information is specifically asked by ITO, CIB in a particular format may be on the strength of internal instructions. For example, the Time Deposits exceeding Rs. 2 Lakhs under code No. 003 is not to be generally furnished by the banks to the department in the prescribed annual return, likewise, other codes also for which different amounts were prescribed by the. This indicates that this information was specifically asked for by theO, CIB.

3.3 It is pertinent to mention that section 124(3) which prescribe the time within which a person can call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer does not apply to a Notice issued under section 133(6). It is, therefore, prayed that the penalty of Rs. 49,800 levied by the Id. JCIT (I & CI) under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in all the three appeals and confirmed by the Id. CIT (Appeals) is not justified and may kindly be deleted.

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is submitted that there has been a delay of 498 days in filing the information under three Codes, namely, 003, ITA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 8 006 & 007. Penalty of Rs. 49,800 has been levied by the Id. JDIT (I & CI) under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for each of the three Codes separately.

4.1 The information relating to the three Codes was furnished on one and the same date, namely, 20.11.2013. In view of the overlapping default, penalty at best should be restricted to only one Code.

6. On the other hand, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that there is no reasonable cause for not levying the penalty for non-compliance of notice U/s 133(6) of the. He also submitted that the delay of 498 days is clearly reflects that the Branch Manager to whom the notice was issued, was not having any respect to the law and he continued his non-compliance for more than 1 years, which could have lead to time barred many enquiries which department could have made on the basis of information. He prayed to sustain the penalties.

7. I have heard both the sides on this issue. I have also convinced that there was inordinate delay in complying the notice. However, I have noticed that there was only one notice was issued by which the information under different codes were sought. I agree with the conclusion drawn by the Income tax authorities regarding non-compliance of notice and not having a reasonable cause for the non-compliance. However, I also noticed that there was only one notice issued, therefore, the penalty can be levied only for non- compliance of the notice once and penalty cannot be levied for theA 197 to 199/JP/2017_ Branch Manager, PNB Vs. JDIT(I&CI) 9 information sought under different codes by the same notice. Therefore, I sustain the penalty up to Rs. 49,800/- in all the three appeals and the balance amount is deleted.

8. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2017. Sd/- Hkkxpan (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj Tk;iqj Tk;iqj Tk;iqj@ @ @ @Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22 nd August, 2017 *Ranjan vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsfkr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The JDIT, (I&CI), Jaipur.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDrvihy@The CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 197 to 199/JP/2017) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar