DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHAHJAHANPUR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ADDL/JDIT (I & CI), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271FA if there are no specified financial transactions to report. For Section 271FAA, the Tribunal found the failure to rectify defects within the stipulated time to be a technical breach, especially since the defects were rectified shortly thereafter and before the penalty was levied.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file statements of specified financial transactions (SFT) for AY 2019-20 and filed defective SFTs for AY 2021-22, leading to penalties under sections 271FA and 271FAA respectively. The assessee contended that there were no reportable transactions for AY 2019-20 and faced technical issues and delays in rectifying defects for AY 2021-22.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271FA is leviable for non-filing of SFT when no reportable transactions exist, and whether penalty under Section 271FAA is justified for a technical breach in rectifying defective SFTs.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271FA,Section 271FAA,Section 285BA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa502 citing83 ITR 26 · 1972 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC for the Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2021-22 wherein the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the penalty levied under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 9,73,000/- for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and under section 271FAA amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for the Assessment Year 2021-22 that was levied by the ld. AO for failure to file statement of financial transactions / furnishing of incorrect information in the statement of financial transactions. The grounds of appeal are as under:- A.Y. 2019-20 “1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (here
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.
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 271FA
- Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kadi vs Addl/Jdit(I&Ci), AhmedabadITA 1258/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kadi vs Addl/Jdit(I&Ci), AhmedabadITA 1257/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sub-Registrar Office Siyana, Siyana vs Joint Director of Income Tax, I&Ci, KanpurITA 6467/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known… vs ITO, Ward 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2592/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
- Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Presently Known… vs JCIT(I & Ci) - 1, KolkataITA 2591/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026