DCIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR vs. TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK, TRIPURA

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: These matters consist of an appeal filed by the Revenue vide ITA No.360/Gty/2025, and Cross Objection No.9/Gty/2026, filed by the assessee, both arising out of the same order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.10.2025, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal relates to the penalty order passed u/s 270A as the CIT(A) has restricted the penalty to 50% of the tax payable on under reported income. Revenue has preferred appeal against the said finding and assessee has filed cross-examination against the said restriction to 50%.We are taking the cross-objection filed by the assessee bearing CO. 9/2026first for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed its original ROI on 17. 10. 2017 admitting total income of NIL. The assessee in the P&L had reported a net profit from business of Rs. 47,40,90,666/-which was adjusted against brought forward losses of earlier years. From the ITR if is seen that the brought forward loss before adjustment of current year loss was Rs.87,75,91,060/-. Further to the issue of notice u/s 148, the assessee filed revised ROI on 25.04.2024 admitting total Income of NIL. The assessee in the P&L had reported a net profit from business of Rs. 58,63,67,666/- which was adjusted against brought forward losses of earlier years. The assessee in its reply filed on 24.08.2024 stated that the Depreciation of investment of Rs. 11,22,77,000/-was added backin the computation tax. It is also noted from the total income/net profit declared in the original ITR and revised ITR (before adjustment of b/f loss), the difference in net profit from business/profession is Rs.11,22,77,000/- Further from the computation of income statement also it is seen that the assessee had added back the Provision for Depreciation on Investment of Rs.11.22.77,000/- to the profit as per P&L a/c.Reasons

I.T.A. No.360/GTY/2025& C.O No.09GTYl/2026 AY: 2017-18 for inference drawn that no variation is required on this issue. As the assessee itself has added back the Provision for Depreciation on Investment of Rs.11.22.77.000/- in the computation statement and accordingly has filed the revised ROI, no variation is required on this issue.However, penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9) is initiated separately by under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income. Accordingly, the Ld. AO as per provisions of Sub-Section (8) to Section 270(A) the penalty of some equal to 200% of the amount of tax payable on under reported income works out to Rs. 3,88,56,824/- has been levied. Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal by the Cit(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed by the CIT(A) after restricting the penalty to 50% of the tax payer. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue preferred appeal and cross- objection has been filed by the assessee. 4. The Ld. AR has challenged the very impugned order thereby submitting that jurisdictional assessing officers opined that application to grant immunity in form No. 68 as per rules has not been submitted, hence the submission to grant of immunity is not accepted. The Ld. AR submits that it is a technical mistake and there was a mandatory direction that no order rejecting the application shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. AR further submits that before rejecting application to grant immunity, assessee has not been served any notice not given any opportunity of being heard that makes the order of penalty null and void. The Ld. AR further submits that in the present case there is nothing to attract that there was a mis-reporting of income and allow ability of depreciation on investment is a totally debatable issue and it has been accepted by the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR further

I.T.A. No.360/GTY/2025& C.O No.09GTYl/2026 AY: 2017-18 submits that there was no mala fide intention of the assessee to evade tax particularly when the organization is run by Central Government, State Government and Punjab National Bank an undertaking of the Central Government. The prayer of the assessee is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to hear the assessee.

6.Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that assessee being the Tripura Gramin Income filed return of income declaring NIL income at the assessee has set of brought forward loss of Rs. 47,40,90,666/- shown under the head profits and gain from the business profession. The assessment order was passed in which Assessing Officers held that computation of income furnished by the assessee revealed that amount of Rs. 11,22,77,000/- booked under depreciation of investment was not added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, a penalty order has been passed by the Ld. Assessing Officers. We find that at the time of penalty proceeding assessee had taken the plea to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution u/s 270AA of the Act. We further find that in the requisite for grant of immunity, assessee has submitted that

I.T.A. No.360/GTY/2025& C.O No.09GTYl/2026 AY: 2017-18 assessee had not intention to evade tax. The Ld. AO has held that as per rule 129 of the Income Tax rule 1962 an application to the assessing officers to grant immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270A and from initiation of proceeding u/s 276C or section 276CC shall be made in form No. 68 and no such application form 68 was found. The main contention of the AR is that this is a technical mistake for which grant of immunity from penalty and prosecution to a bank cannot be disallowed. The Ld. AR submits that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to submit before the JAO to satisfy him why the penalty should not be imposed.

In the result the CO is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous.

Kolkata, the 2nd September , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 02.09.2026.

I.T.A. No.360/GTY/2025& C.O No.09GTYl/2026 AY: 2017-18 DC, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Manish Bhoi, Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata