The Giridih Central Co-operative bank ltd, Dhanbad V. Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Rajrappa

ITA 88/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9980 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K.CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 88/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 THE GIRIDIH CENTRAL CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., C/O. CA D.N.DOKANIA, 103 - A, SHANTI BHAWAN, BANK MORE, DHANBAD VS. DI RE CTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), PATNA PAN/GIR NO. RCHG)1730 B (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K.CHOUDHURY , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY PAL , DR DATE OF HEARING : 7 /12/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7 /12/ 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I NTELLIGENCE & C RIMINAL I NVESTIGATION ), PATNA DATED 17.2.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 2015 . 2. THE SO L E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), PATNA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.29,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 88/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF GIRIDIH CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GIRIDIH FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14 BELATEDLY ON 17.6.2015, WHICH WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON 31.8.2014 AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS DELAY OF 290 DAYS. HENCE, PENALTY U/S.271FA OF RS.29,000/ - WAS LEVIED. 4. BEFORE ME, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND THE OFFICERS/MANAGERS AND OLD STAFF HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING KEEPS ON CHANGING OR RETIRES. THE MANAGER AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS IGNORANT OF LAW AND FACT. THE BRANCHES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK ARE LOCATED IN REMOTE PLACES. THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED MANUALLY. THE DETAILS REQUIRED COULD NOT BE GATHERED DUE TO MANUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND STAFF ARE NOT ALL ACQUAINTED WITH DETAILS DUE TO HEAVY SHORTAGE OF STAFF. THE BANK IS SUFFERING FROM HUGE LOSS. THE STAFF STRENGTH IS ALSO NOT QUALIFIED ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN COMPLETE INFORMATION IN WRITING SOON AF T ER GATHERING INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 24.2.2015 AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FINDING DIFFICULT IN FILING THE RETURN ONLINE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE E - FILED THE RETURN OF INFORMATION IN AIR DATED 18.6.2015 AFTER TROUBLESHOOTING THE ONLINE PROBLEM. THE ASSESSEE ALWAYS COOPERATED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THAT THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION BEHIND IT. 3 ITA NO. 88/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 5. FURTHER, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUST AN STEEL LTD VS STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED WITH VENIAL OR TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI). 7. I FIND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED AIR RETURN AT ALL. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SAID RETURN BUT BELATEDLY WITH A DELAY OF 290 DAYS. THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY ISSUE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS SHOWS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IS NOT MALAFIDE OR DELIBERATE. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONLY FOR A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF LAW, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVI ED ON THE ASSESSEE. MY VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD (SUPRA). FURTHER, THE ASSESSE HAS EXPLAINED THAT INFORMATION FOR COMPLYING THE AIR RETURN HAS TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE BRANCHES LOCATE D IN REMOTE AREAS AND THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TRAINED STAFF AND ALSO THERE IS SHORTAGE OF STAFF AND HENCE , IT TOOK TIME TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION FOR FILING THE AIR RETURN. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE A PLAUSIBLE ONE. THEREFORE, I AM OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PENALTY U/S.271FA CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW AND, THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER 4 ITA NO. 88/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 OF THE DIT (I&CI) AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.29,000/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 /12/2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - (N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI ; DATED 7 /12 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : THE GIRIDIH CENTRAL CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., C/O. CA D.N.DOKANIA, 103 - A, SHANTI BHAWAN, BANK MORE, DHANBAD 2. THE RESPONDENT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), PATNA 3. THE CIT(A) , PATNA 4. CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//