NANDED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,NANDED vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1617/PUN/2018Status: HeardITAT Pune13 January 2022AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 271FA is not maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Section 271FA is not listed in Section 253 of the Act, which specifies appealable orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Cooperative Bank, failed to furnish a Statement of Financial Transactions (SFT) as required under Section 285BA of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271FA.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether an appeal against a penalty order passed under Section 271FA of the Income-tax Act is maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 285BA,Section 271FA,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE - VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23-07-2018 passed by the AO imposing penalty of Rs.1,32,800/- u/s.271FA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Co- operative Bank, was required to furnish a Statement of Financial Transactions (SFT) u/s.285BA of the Act in Form No.61A in Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., respect of “Specified Transactions”. The assessee did not file the SFT in respect of the “Specified Transactions”. Considering the continuing delay, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271FA amounting to Rs.1,32,800/- @ 100/- per day from 01-07-2017 to 30-11-2017 and Rs.500/- per day from 01-12-2017 to 23-07-2018, being, the date of penalty order passed by him. The assessee has filed appeal against the penalty order before the Tribunal.

3.

We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Section 253 of the Act contains a list of the orders appealable before the Tribunal. Sub-section (1) provides for the filing of appeals by the assessee against the orders passed under the specified sections; and sub-section (2) contains a list of the orders appealable by the Revenue. Section 253(1) does not contain an order passed u/s.271FA. In that view of the matter, the ld. AR was confronted with this position and required to make contention as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

On the next date of hearing, the ld. AR relied on an order passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in Malda District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. DIT (ITA Nos.956 & 957/Kol/2013). Vide its order dated 03-08-2016, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on merits

Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., without going into the question of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the ld. DR referred to certain orders passed by the Pune Benches in which the question of maintainability of the appeals against the orders passed u/s.271FA has been considered and decided against the assessee. Vide order dated 28-02-2011, the Tribunal in Onward Technologies Limited Vs. DIT (CIB) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable against the order passed u/s.271FA as such section is not covered in the list of appealable orders u/s.253.

Similar view has been taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITA No.827/PN/2010). Vide its order dated 21-10-2011, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Similar view has been taken by various other benches.

4.

It has been brought to our notice that this very issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sub- Registrar, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar Vs. DIT (CIB)

(2013) 258 CTR 446 (Raj). The Hon’ble High Court in this case has approved the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal against the order passed u/s.271FA, as not maintainable. In para 3, the Hon’ble High Court further observed that the assessee has an Nanded District Central Coop Bank Ltd., alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned penalty order before the ld. first appellate authority, i.e. CIT(A) and allowed an opportunity to the assessee to file appeal against the order u/s.271FA before the CIT(A). Similar view has been taken in DIT vs. Ravi Vijay & Anr. 2012) 252 CTR 228 (Raj). No contrary view by any other High Court has been brought to our notice.

Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court on this score, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. The assessee is at liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedy as suggested in the judgment, if so desired. We order accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th January, 2022.

More judgments on Section 285BA

All 109 judgments and leading authorities on Section 285BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →