Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU ITA No.7/ 2017 Date of order: 08.08.2017. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge Appearing counsel: For the Petitioner/Appellant (s) : None.For the Respondent(s) : i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Press/Media ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Digest/Journal 1.None appeared on behalf of the appellant even when the matter was taken up second time. 2. We have perused the records. 3.In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revenue has assailed the validity of order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench (hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) by which appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated are that a penalty of Rs. 4,73,499/- under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was imposed by the assessing officer on the respondent for violating the provisions of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act as the respondent has made the repayment of deposits to various depositors in cash through various ________________________________________________________________________________________ branches. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu vide order dated 06.12.2013. Thereupon, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2015, inter alia, held that the Revenue has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction and has imposed the penalty as the repayment was made by the assessee in violation of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. It was further held that in respect of similar violations in assessment year 2006-07, the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) himself has deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer on the similar facts and circumstances. It was also held that the violation is not intentional and the provisions empowered the Revenue to assess penalty is not mandatory in nature and confers discretion on the Revenue to levy or not levy the penalty. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed. 5. The Tribunal has relied on a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Saini Medical Store: 277 ITR 420 (P&H) and has held that if assessee shows reasonable cause for the failure to comply with any provisions referred thereto, the penalty for its violation shall not be imposable on the assessee. The Tribunal recorded a finding ________________________________________________________________________________________ that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for making the payment in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The aforesaid finding is purely a finding of fact, which is based on sound reasoning. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ` Jammu 08.08.2017Vinod. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge (Alok Aradhe) Judge ________________________________________________________________________________________