Pioneer Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow V. Director of Income Tax (I & CI), Lucknow

ITA 256/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 25623714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

1 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 NOS.256 & 257/LKW/2015 A.YRS.:2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 PIONEER URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 439/51, TEHSEEN, HARDOI ROAD, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABAP0040M VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 28/11/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13. 2. IN BOTH THE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN EACH YEAR BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT OF RS.54,100/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND RS.17,500/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 1 3. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAIBAREILLY DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) APPELLANT BY SHRI SAURABH GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM,D. R. DATE OF HEARING 04/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 7 /07/2015 2 IN I.T.A. NO.699/LKW /2013 DATED 07/01/2014. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LEARN ED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARA NO. 3 TO 5, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 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 T O 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 TH E 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. LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON T HE 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 COMPL EXITIES 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 OUT RIGHTLY 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. 3 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE THAT WHEN 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 COMPLE XITIES OF THE I.T. ACT AND 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 BE DISBELIEVED AND THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND THE PENALTY U/S 271FA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 13.1 OF HIS ORDER THAT NO OPINION HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RB I AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEING CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN BANKING BUSINESS UNDER LICENSE OF RBI SHOULD NORMALLY SEEK ADVICE OF THE RBI FOR ANY CONFUSION ON APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT. HENCE, IT IS SEEN T HAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RAIBAREILLY DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271 FA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN BOTH THE YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 7 /07/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR