BANDHAN BANK LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-6(1), KOLKATA

ITA 965/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 September 2026AY 2018-20195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a bank, had claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The assessee paid the tax liability and filed Form 68 on October 26, 2021 (online) and October 29, 2021 (physical) seeking immunity from penalty proceedings. However, the AO denied this immunity, and this denial was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee's submission was that it had not suppressed any income and the addition was made based on a difference of opinion. The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's filing of Form 68 for immunity. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and considering the legal precedents cited. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bandhan Bank Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on March 27, 2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,46,70,73,590. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on September 29, 2021, determining a total income of Rs. 4,46,76,53,590. This included an addition of Rs. 5,80,000 under Section 36(1)(viii). The assessee paid the tax liability and filed Form 68 for immunity from penalty proceedings under Section 270A. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied this immunity. The assessee's appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was dismissed by an order dated January 19, 2026. The present appeal is against this NFAC order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in denying immunity from penalty proceedings under Section 270A, despite the assessee filing Form 68 and paying the tax liability, when the addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding a deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viii)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act for bad debt recovery of Rs. 29,00,000, which the AO disallowed. The assessee had decided to pay the tax liability and filed Form 68 online for immunity from penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 270A. The AO denied this immunity without providing any reasons. The assessee contended that no income was suppressed and the addition was based on a difference of opinion. The assessee relied on several High Court and ITAT decisions, including CIT v. Hotel Sabar Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v. Anand Water Meter Mfg. Co. Revenue's Contention: The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viii),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.01.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 270A of the Assessment Year 2018-19 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that Return of income was filed on 27.03.2019 declaring total i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(viii)

All 364 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →