Nanded District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Nanded V. Director Of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation), Pune

ITA 1617/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0172 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE - VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1617/PUN/2018 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nanded District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Railway Station Road, Near Shivaji Statue, Nanded – 431 601 PAN : AAAAN0696A Vs. DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23-07-2018 passed by the AO imposing penalty of Rs.1,32,800/- u/s.271FA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Co- operative Bank, was required to furnish a Statement of Financial Transactions (SFT) u/s.285BA of the Act in Form No.61A in Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13-01-2022 ITA No.1617/PUN/2018 Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., 2 respect of “Specified Transactions”. The assessee did not file the SFT in respect of the “Specified Transactions”. Considering the continuing delay, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271FA amounting to Rs.1,32,800/- @ 100/- per day from 01-07-2017 to 30-11-2017 and Rs.500/- per day from 01-12-2017 to 23-07-2018, being, the date of penalty order passed by him. The assessee has filed appeal against the penalty order before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Section 253 of the Act contains a list of the orders appealable before the Tribunal. Sub-section (1) provides for the filing of appeals by the assessee against the orders passed under the specified sections; and sub-section (2) contains a list of the orders appealable by the Revenue. Section 253(1) does not contain an order passed u/s.271FA. In that view of the matter, the ld. AR was confronted with this position and required to make contention as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as not maintainable. On the next date of hearing, the ld. AR relied on an order passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in Malda District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA Nos.956 & 957/Kol/2013). Vide its order dated 03-08-2016, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on merits ITA No.1617/PUN/2018 Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., 3 without going into the question of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the ld. DR referred to certain orders passed by the Pune Benches in which the question of maintainability of the appeals against the orders passed u/s.271FA has been considered and decided against the assessee. Vide order dated 28-02-2011, the Tribunal in Onward Technologies Limited Vs. DIT (CIB) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable against the order passed u/s.271FA as such section is not covered in the list of appealable orders u/s.253. Similar view has been taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITA No.827/PN/2010). Vide its order dated 21-10-2011, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Similar view has been taken by various other benches. 4. It has been brought to our notice that this very issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sub- Registrar, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar Vs. DIT (CIB) (2013) 258 CTR 446 (Raj). The Hon’ble High Court in this case has approved the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal against the order passed u/s.271FA, as not maintainable. In para 3, the Hon’ble High Court further observed that the assessee has an ITA No.1617/PUN/2018 Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., 4 alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned penalty order before the ld. first appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A) and allowed an opportunity to the assessee to file appeal against the order u/s.271FA before the CIT(A). Similar view has been taken in DIT vs. Ravi Vijay & Anr. 2012) 252 CTR 228 (Raj). No contrary view by any other High Court has been brought to our notice. Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court on this score, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. The assessee is at liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as suggested in the judgment, if so desired. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13 th January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 13 th January, 2022 Satish ITA No.1617/PUN/2018 Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent; 3. DIT (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Pune 4. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 13-01-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 13-01-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *