THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, NASHIK vs. THE DHULE DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK

1 ITA17.2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. Versus The Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. Versus The Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. ...Appellant.. Versus The Dhule Dist. Central Co-op Bank, Shivaji Road, Dhule, PAN : AAAD1108K ..Respondent.. -------------------- In all matters: Shri D. V. Soman, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. R. Chandak, Advocate for respondent --------------------

2 ITA17.2013 CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 5TH, 2014. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A. V. NIRGUDE, J.) 1. Income Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2013 is not on Board. The same is taken on Board at the request of the learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. All these appeals are filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent’s case does not fall within the ambit of Section 271(C) of the Income Tax Act, which provides initiation of penalty proceedings for concealment of income etc. The authorities below mostly on facts concurrently held that the respondent cannot be held to be responsible for purposefully concealing certain amount of its income. The facts of these cases are quite glaring. The respondent in all these appeals is a District Central Cooperative Bank. In the year 2003-04, it has submitted its income tax return showing huge amount of loss and, therefore, there was no question of paying income tax. Certain deductions were shown on account of direction issued by Reserve Bank of India. The Bank did not know, this deduction is not permissible under

3 ITA17.2013 the provisions of Income Tax Act. This error was pointed out by the Assessing Officer and notice under Section 148 was issued. Pursuant to the notice, a new return was filed correcting the error committed earlier. The Assessing Officer was not happy with this and he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty but, the appellate Court held that this is a case of ignorance of law and then held concurrently that the respondent cannot be penalized. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant tried to suggest that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a substantial question of law is arising as to whether the authorities below erred in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad Versus Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited reported in (2008) 9 SCC 622. 4. The Supreme Court in the above cited judgment held that, even concealment of negative loss would result into

4 ITA17.2013 penalty proceedings. However, this ratio is not applicable to the facts of this case. The Assessment Officer rightly held that there was concealment of loss in case of respondent’s income tax return, however, the other facts clearly indicated that the concealment was not purposeful and for not achieving any benefit. In view of this, the Court holds that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals for consideration. 5. Hence, the Income Tax Appeals stand disposed of.

(V. L. ACHLIYA, J.) (A. V. NIRGUDE, J.) sgp