THE HALOL URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD.,HALOL vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was aware of the requirement to file the SFT, there was an issue with the service of notices. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,800/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative bank, failed to file a Statement of Financial Transaction (SFT) for AY 2017-18 by the due date. The Director of Income Tax levied a penalty of Rs. 73,000/- under Section 271FA for the delay.
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the assessee's failure to file the SFT and the validity of the penalty levied, particularly concerning the service of notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises from order of the CIT(A), Ahmedabad dated 17-10-2017, in proceedings under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Page No 2 The Halol Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax ( I & CI)
The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in levying penalty of Rs. 73,000/- u/s. 271Fof the Act.
3. The fact in brief is that ld. Director of Income Tax (I & CI) has passed order u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271FA on 17th October, 2017 and levied penalty of Rs. 73,000/- u/s. 271FA for failing to file SFT-O14 for assessment year 2017-18 for which the last data was expired on 31st Jan, 2016. The ld. Director of Income Tax (I & CI) stated that two notices on 11th April, 2017 and 1st June, 2017 were issued directing the assessee to file the SFT-014 failing which penalty would be leviable @ Rs. 500 per day for each day of failure commencing on 21st June, 2017 since the assessee bank had not responded to the notices therefore penalty was worked out at Rs. 73,000/-.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has contended that assessee was unaware of non-filing of SFT return for F.Y. 2016-17 and it came to its knowledge only after a notice received by it from the office of the Director of Income Tax (I & CI) Ahmedabad on receipt of notice, the SFT return 014 for F.Y. 2016-17 was filed electronically on 28th March, 2019. The ld. counsel has also submitted that from Jan, 2017 premises of the company was under renovation therefore notices stated in the penalty order by the Director of Income Tax (I & CI) were not received by the bank and even the Page No 3 The Halol Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax ( I & CI) penalty order levied u/s. 271FA was also not received by the bank. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has supported the order of Director of Income Tax (I & CI)
Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee is a co-operative bank engaged in the business of banking. The bank is required to file SFT return (statement of special finances transaction) u/s. 285BA of the Act. In view of the provision of section 285BA of the act, the assessee was required to file annual information return in relation to F.Y. 2016-17 on or before 31st Jan, 2016 and the assessee has failed to comply with the said statutory requirement. Therefore, the Director of Income Tax (I & CI) accordingly levied the penalty u/s. 271FA for the period of delay at Rs. 79,000/-. The penalty amount was worked out as under:- (a) Rs.14,000/- For the delay of 140 days from 01/02/2017 to 20/06/2017@ Rs. 100/- per day;
(b) Rs. 59,000/- For the delay of 118 days from 21/06/2017 to 16/10/2017 @ rate Rs. 500/- per day. The amount of penalty was computed as per the provision of section 271FA. We do not find any merit in the plea of the assessee stating that it was unaware about the filing of impugned statement. Regarding the contention of the assessee that it had not received the notices reported in the penalty order, it is observed that the ld. DIT( I & IC) has also not mentioned the date of serving the two notices dated 11-04- Page No 4 The Halol Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax ( I & CI)
2017 & 1-6-2017 upon the assessee. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, we hold that penalty of Rs. 25,800/- (258 days x Rs. 100 per day) on the assessee will be justified. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25-10-2021 Sd/ Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 25/10/2021 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
More judgments on Section 271FA
- Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kadi vs Addl/Jdit(I&Ci), AhmedabadITA 1258/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kadi vs Addl/Jdit(I&Ci), AhmedabadITA 1257/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sub-Registrar Office Siyana, Siyana vs Joint Director of Income Tax, I&Ci, KanpurITA 6467/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known… vs ITO, Ward 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2592/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
- Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known… vs JCIT(I & Ci) - 1, KolkataITA 2591/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026