Ram Sindg Bhadauria, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur

ITA 18/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 1823714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SOURABH GUPTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.699/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 RAIBAREILLY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, H.P.O. KAIPERGANJ, GHANTAGHAR, KUTCHERY ROAD RAIBAREILLY V. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&C) LUCKNOW TAN/PAN:LKNZ05100E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. SOURABH GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. P. K. DEY, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 10 02 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 02 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&C), LUCKNOW, INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING A PENALTY OF RS.15,300/- U/S271FA. 2. THAT THE ID. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE AIR WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND, THEREFORE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 15,300/- U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ID. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE :- 2 -: APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF THE AIR AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 15,300/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDER DATED 7.1.2014 SETTING ASIDE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WITH A PLEA THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS DISPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.1.2014 WAS RECALLED FINDING FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON THE POINT OF JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHERE AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX PASSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL ON MERIT WAS HEARD. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AS RAISED WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL INITIALLY. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE REVENUE AND FINDING FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN OUR ORDER DATED 7.1.2014. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.1.2014 AS UNDER:- :- 3 -: 2. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, WE FIND THAT AS PER ITEM NO. 1 OF THE TABLE IN RULE 114E(2) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962, BANKING COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO FILE AIR (ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN) IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF CASH DEPOSIT AGGREGATING TO RS.10 LAKHS OR MORE IN A YEAR IN ANY SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF A PERSON MAINTAINED WITH THAT BANK. THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF AIR WAS 31 ST DECEMBER IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO FILE THE AIR, PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY THE AIR WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE DUE DATE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 285BA(5) DATED 28/12/2012 WAS ISSUED TO FILE THE AIR FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-12 BY 18/01/2013. CONSEQUENT THERETO, A LETTER DATED 02/02/2013 WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (I&CI) ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 ENCLOSING THE RECEIPT OF AIR DATED 01/02/2013 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-12. IN RESPONSE THERETO, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX WAS CONSTRAINT TO COMPUTE THE PENALTY AS PER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS.15,300/- WAS LEVIED. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT DELAY FOR FURNISHING THE AIR WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE IGNORANCE OF LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONCERNED PERSON IN THE ASSESSEE BANK. THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THE LATEST LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE OF THE CONCERNED OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF FILING AIR BEFORE THE DUE DATE, THE AIR WAS FILED WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE AIR WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271BFA SHOULD BE LEVIED FOR IGNORANCE OF LEGAL COMPLEXITIES OF INCOME-TAX ACT. :- 4 -: 4. LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX. 5. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND IN RURAL AREAS THE OFFICERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE LEGAL COMPLEXITIES OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF IGNORANCE OF THE CONCERNED PERSON ABOUT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT OUTRIGHTLY BE DISBELIEVED. SINCE THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PLAUSIBLE, THE PENALTY U/S 271BFA SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271FA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WE DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 JJ:102 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR :- 5 -: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR