ANAND RATHI SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

2 Further, the Ld. the regulatory instru with reference to Fo referred to the notific subsequently withdr 04.09.2015. The said by way of notification clarification dated 2 FATCA and CRS Department) issued a on the Income-tax W issued on 29.12.202 FATCA and CRS. The clarifications, the ass 61B within limitatio Kolkata Bench of the Co-operative Bank L Criminal Investigation – Trib.). The Ld. Cou Bench of the Tribu operative Bank v. Di 4846/Del/2019 for a 7. The Ld. Departm the lower authoritie Anand Rathi Sah IT . Counsel submitted that there w uction issued by the Income-t orm No. 61B of the Rules. Th cation No. 3/2015 dated 25.08.2 rawn by way of notification No d notification No. 4/2015 was n No. 4/2016 dated 06.04.201 26.05.2016 was issued for imp and Directorate of System a user manual for use in view o Website. Subsequently, further 22 specifying due diligence an e Ld. Counsel submitted that in sessee could not comply the fili n. The Ld. Counsel relied on e Tribunal in the case of Durapu Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax n), Kolkata [2016] 74 taxmann.c unsel also relied on the decisi unal in the case of The Rewa irectorate of Income-tax (I&CI) assessment year 2017-18. mental Representative supporte es, contending that Section 2 hre and Stock Brokers Ltd. 7 TA No. 4155, 4412, 4413 & 4414/MUM/2025 was a change in tax Department he Ld. Counsel 2015 which was . 4/2016 dated also withdrawn 6. Thereafter, a plementation of m (Income-tax of Form No. 61B a Circular was nd reporting for n view of various ng of said Form the decision of ur Steel Peoples’ (Intelligence & com 97 (Kolkata ion of the Delhi ari Central Co- Rewari ITA No. ed the orders of 285BA casts a public–duty obligatio of such statements reasonable cause wit The Ld. DR also relie Ahmedabad Tribuna Bank Ltd. (supra) reli 8. We have heard the relevant material has levied penalty u statement of foreign section 271FA of the “[Penalty for fa transaction or re 74 271FA. If a per financial transactio section 285BA, fai prescribed under s prescribed under s shall pay, by way every day during w Provided that whe within the period (5) of section 285B 78[one thousand] r continues, beginni on which the tim 76[statement] expire 8.1 The factual pos 61B is undisputed. such delay was occas Anand Rathi Sah IT on upon reporting entities, mak s a mandatory requirement thin the ambit of Section 273B w ed on the decision of the Co-or l in the case of The Waghodia ied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). rival submissions of the parti ls on record. In the case, the A u/s 271FA of the Act for dela n accounts transaction. For r Act is reproduced as under: ailure to furnish73[statement of eportable account]. rson who is required to furnish 75[a s on or reportable account] under sub-s ils to furnish such 76[statement] with sub-section (2) thereof, the income-ta said sub-section (1) may direct that s y of penalty, a sum of 77[five] hundred which such failure continues: ere such person fails to furnish the 76 specified in the notice issued under BA, he shall pay, by way of penalty rupees for every day during which ng from the day immediately followi me specified in such notice for furn es.]” sition regarding delay in furnis The sole question for adjudica sioned by a “reasonable cause” hre and Stock Brokers Ltd. 8 TA No. 4155, 4412, 4413 & 4414/MUM/2025 king timely filing and that no was established. dinate Bench of Urban Co. Op. ies and perused Assessing Officer ay in filing the ready reference, f financial statement of section (1) of hin the time ax authority such person d rupees for 6[statement] sub-section y, a sum of the failure ing the day nishing the shing Form No. ation is whether so as to attract the protection of Sec section 273B is repro “6[Penalty n 7 273B. N provisions of 271, section section 27 12[section 27 271F, 14[sec 271FAB,] 17[ 271GA,] 20[s 271H,] 23[se clause (d) of 272A, sub-se or] 26[sub-se 272BB or] 28 (b) of sub-se section (2) of on the perso any failure r that there wa 8.2 Thus the sectio furnish a “statement within the prescribed exception, stipulatin assessee proves that 8.3 In view of the a is before us whether filing the Form No. account transactions that delay happene Anand Rathi Sah IT ction 273B of the Act. For ready oduced as under: not to be imposed in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained of 8[clause (b) of sub-section (1) of] 9 n 271A, 10[section 271AA,] section 2 1BA], 11[section 271BB,] section 71CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 13 ction 271FA,] 15[section 271FAA,] 16 [section 271FB,] 18[section 271G,]] 19 section 271GB,] 21[section 271GC,] 22 ection 271-I,] 24[section 271J,] claus f sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of ection (1) of section 272AA] or 25[sectio ection (1) 27[or sub-section (1A)] of 8[sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or ection (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) f section 273, no penalty shall be im on or the assessee, as the case may referred to in the said provisions if he as reasonable cause 29 for the said fa on 271FA mandates a penalty of financial transaction or repo d time. However, Section 273B ng that no penalty shall be im there was reasonable cause for above factual background, the i there any ‘reasonable cause’ ex 61B prescribed for filing state s by the assessee. The assessee ed mainly due to frequent hre and Stock Brokers Ltd. 9 TA No. 4155, 4412, 4413 & 4414/MUM/2025 y reference said in the 9[section 271B10[, 271C, 3[section 6[section 9[section 2[section se (c) or f section on 272B section r] clause of sub- mposable y be, for e proves ailure.]” y for failure to ortable account” B carves out an mposable if the such failure. issue in dispute xists for delay in ement of foreign e has submitted change in the instructions issued r compliance framewor form in filing statem filed on time. Howeve filed for delay in coll has further explained regulatory complianc audit reports and TD limit. 8.4 On the facts of t  The obligation framework was year;  There was sub compliance pr Department; an  The assessee compliance in o 8.5 These circumst within the protective this conclusion in th Steel Peoples’ Co–o recognised that frequ Anand Rathi Sah IT regarding filing of Form No. 61B rk. The assessee has further ple ment of foreign account i.e. For er, inadvertently the Form No. 6 lecting the data from the client d that it had maintained a cons ce including filing of income- DS statement etc. within the the present case, we note that: to file Form No. 61B under t s relatively nascent for the re bstantial and frequent modif rocedure and instructions i nd has an established track re ther statutory filings under the ances, in our considered view, e ambit of Section 273B. We f he decision of the Kolkata Ben operative Bank Ltd. (supra), uent legislative changes may res hre and Stock Brokers Ltd. 10 TA No. 4155, 4412, 4413 & 4414/MUM/2025 B and in view of eaded that other m No. 61B was 61B could not be ts. The assessee sistent record of tax return, tax prescribed time the FATCA/CRS levant calendar fication in the ssued by the ecord of timely Ac , bring the case find support for nch in Durgapur where it was sult in bona fide and technical breac 271FA in the absenc finding of the Co-ordi “9. We have perused the consideration breach, nothin of fact, the investigation) his order vide branches co Tax/TDS ret (Intelligence a the assessee Section 285B loss to the Re recognized fa complicated assistance of known fact, a this field und is not possible the tax admin is on a particu the history of fides can be a proceedings Director of In should have t breach of the flown from a to act in the have invoked the above de are liable to b 8.6 Applying the ra herein was a tech reasons, without any the penalty levied u Anand Rathi Sah IT ches, not warranting penalty ce of mala fides or revenue los inate Bench is reproduced as un e heard the arguments of both the sid relevant material available on record. O n of the matter, we find that except the ins ng more is alleged against the assessee. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence a who passed the penalty order himself e para No 3 that the assessee got the ac nsolidated and audited, and also f turns. The order of the Director of and Criminal investigation) does not spea stood to gain by contravening with the p BA of the Act or the act of assessee res evenue. Further, it is an acknowledged a act that the tax laws of this country are and often require for compliance, th f tax practitioners specialising in this fie and it is equally well known fact that the dergoes so frequent changes and amendm e for even a person specialising in this fie nistrator, to claim that he knows what exa ular given day or period without making f the enactments. In these circumstanc attributed to the assessee so as to invoke under section 271FA of the Act and ncome Tax (Intelligence and Criminal i taken note that the breach is only techni provisions of the Act and such a breach bona fide ignorance of the assessee tha manner prescribed by the statute, and d the penalty proceedings. We, therefore, ecision cited supra find that the Penalty be set aside. We order accordingly.” atio of the said decision, we hold nical/venial breach arising f y intention to evade complianc under Section 271FA is unsus hre and Stock Brokers Ltd. 11 TA No. 4155, 4412, 4413 & 4414/MUM/2025 under Section ss. The relevant nder: des and also On a careful stant alleged As a matter and Criminal f observed in ccounts of all filed Income Income Tax ak as to how provisions of sulted in any and judicially complex and herewith the eld, is a well legislation in ments that it eld, including actly the law references to ces, no mala e the penalty the learned investigation) ical or venial h could have at he is liable d should not by following proceedings d that the delay from bona fide ce. Accordingly, tainable and is directed to be deleted assessee are accordin 9. Since the ground r 2020 to 2020-21 are year 2018-19 and grounds raised in th 2021-22 are also allo 10. In the result, all Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 14/08/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.