The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nashik V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Pune

ITA 529/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76342 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S WALIMBE
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.529/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) THE NASHIK ROAD DEOLALI VYAPARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD., KALPAWRUKSHA, ASHANAGAR, P.B.NO.207, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK- 422101 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AAAAT4688C VS. DCIT (CIB), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SHRI P.S. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 20-03-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-03-2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FO LLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 FA OF THE I.T. ACT, LEVIED BY THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (OB), PUNE, WHEN THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE AIR RETURN IN TIME. THE PENALTY MAY PLEA SE BE CANCELLED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, NASHIK IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 FA OF THE I. T. ACT, LEVIED BY THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (CIB), PUNE, WHEN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEND THE AIT RETURN IN TIME. THE PENALTY MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (CIB ), PUNE AND THE CIT(A) NASHIK ARE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNOR ING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 285BA OF T HE ACT. 2 THE APPELLANT HAS DULY FURNISHED THE INFORMATION TH OUGH NO TIME LIMIT WAS SPECIFIED IN ANY COMMUNICATION ACCORDING TO SECTION 285BA(4). THE PENALTY MAY PLEA SE BE CANCELLED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (CIB ), PUNE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY ON GRO UND THAT NO AIR INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED FOR F.Y. 2007-08.W HEN THE APPELLANT HAD DULY FURNISHED THE SAME AS PER PROVISIONAL RECEIPT NO.020150100000155. THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHOR ITY LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271FA OF ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE BANK AND IT WAS REQUI RED TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN ON OR BEFORE 31-0 8-2009. HOWEVER, SAME WAS FILED ONLY AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CA USE NOTICE DATED 31-03-2010 BY PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S.285BA. THEREFORE, THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY OF 222 DAY S IN FILING THE RETURN. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 285 OF THE ACT WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY OBSERVED THAT AIR WA S REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN COMPUTABLE READABLE MEDIA OR ONLINE THROUGH NSDL BY 31-08-2009. THE FILLER, HOWEVER, INSTEAD O F FILING THE RETURN AS PRESCRIBED SENT THE SAME ON COMPUTER DISC WHICH WAS NOT AS PER PRESCRIBED MANNER. THE FILLER ULTIMATEL Y FILED THE RETURN ON 12-04-2010 ONLY AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAS NOTED THAT FILLER DID NOT FILE THE AIR EVEN FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX, TDS AND FILING OF THE RETURN ARE NOT R ELATIVE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING THE DEFAULT U/S.271FA OF TH E ACT. ULTIMATELY THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUT HORITY WAS LEVIED AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 3.1 STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE I S COOPERATIVE BANK AND A LENIENT VIEW BE TAKEN BECAUS E THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE AIR RETU RN IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT WELL VERSED WI TH THE NEW SYSTEM. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE S AME AS PER 3 PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT NO.020150100000155. MAIN PLAN K ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE COULD NOT ADOPTED THE NEW SYSTEM OF TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT F RIENDLY WITH NEW TECHNICAL SYSTEM. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 273B. SO THE PENALTY IN QUESTION IS DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE IGNORANCE OF NEW TECHNIQUE IN THIS FIELD SHOULD NOT BE PERPETUAT ED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KU MAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SATISH/GCVSR PUNE, DATED 20 TH MARCH 2014 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE