THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,SHIKARIPURA vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 112/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the original provisions of Rule 114E did not include 'co-operative bank', and its insertion from 1.4.2016 created ambiguity. This ambiguity constituted a bonafide belief and reasonable cause under Section 273B.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative bank, failed to furnish AIR for a particular year. The revenue argued that co-operative banks are covered under 'banking company' and the amendment to Rule 114E was clarificatory. The assessee contended there was ambiguity regarding their obligation.

What were the issues?

Whether a co-operative bank is considered a 'banking company' for the purpose of furnishing AIR, and if ambiguity in the rules constitutes reasonable cause for penalty waiver.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 285BA,Section 271FA,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

of sec.273B of the Act. Accordingly he prayed that the impugned penalty be deleted.

7.

The Ld D.R, however, submitted that the assessee shall fall under the category of "banking company" and hence the assessee has complied with the notice issued u/ s 285BA(5) of the Act. He submitted that the amendment made in Rule 114E by inserting "co- operative bank" is only clarificatory in nature. He submitted that all the assessees are covered by sec.285BA(1) of the Act and hence there exists no ambiguity as contended by Ld A.R.

8.

In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R submitted that the expressions Banking company and co-operative banks have specific meaning under the Banking Regulations Act.

9. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the original provisions of Rule 114E of Income tax Rules did not include "co-operative bank" and it was inserted only in the amended provisions of Rule 114E, which came into effect from 1.4.2016. Accordingly, in our view, there is merit in the submission of the Id A.R that there existed an ambiguity as to whether the co-operative banks are required to comply with the provisions of Rule 114E of the Act, meaning thereby, the bonafide belief of the assessee shall constitute reasonable cause in terms of sec.273B of the Act for the failure in furnishing the AIR for the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by 14 CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty levied u/s 271FA of the Act for the year under consideration."

5.

We notice that the facts prevailing in the above said case are identical with the facts of the present cases. Accordingly, following the above said order of the Tribunal, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the DIT to delete the penalty levied u/s 271FA of the Act in all the three years under consideration.

6.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.”

9.

In the present case, we notice the facts which considered by the lower authorities are similar to those considered in the case of Nehrunagar Co-op Bank Ltd., (supra). Accordingly, following the above order of the Tribunal, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

10.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

More judgments on Section 285BA

All 109 judgments and leading authorities on Section 285BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →