PUDUKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PUDUKAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B cannot be sustained as the assessee is a co-operative society duly audited under the State government Act. Following a similar precedent, the penalty was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Pudukad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., failed to furnish audited financial statements within the due date specified under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271B, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed furnishing of tax audit report when the assessee is a co-operative society already audited under state law, and if there was sufficient cause for the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.
Appellant by: Ms. Swathy S., Advocate Respondent by: Ms. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10.11.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) amounting to Rs.1,47,609/- only.
In the present case, the audited financial statements were not furnished by the assessee within the due date as specified u/s 44AB of the Act. Therefore, the AO levied penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,47,609/- only which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
The learned A.R. before us submitted that the delay in getting the accounts audited and consequently furnishing the tax audit report belatedly was on account of the delay in getting the accounts audited and obtaining the audit certificate under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Thus, it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the assessee that there was sufficient cause for the delay in getting the account audited and consequently furnishing the audit report belatedly. As such the learned A.R. prayed for wavier of the penalty under the provisions of section 273B of the Act.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal in the case of Udumbannoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. in vide order dated 12.08.2024 has observed as under: - “4. We find no reason to accept the Revenue’s above stand. We have made it clear in the preceding paragraphs that s. 44AB forms the basis of the impugned penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, in case the assessee fails to comply with the rigor of the tax audit compliance. We reiterate that this assessee is a co- operative credit society wherein it already gets its accounts audited by the departmental auditor. We are of the considered view in these facts that the impugned penalty cannot be sustained as the assessee is a co-operative society duly audited under the provisions of the Stage government Act. The impugned penalty levied by both the lower authorities that it has not got it books audited u/s. 44AB is deleted therefore.”
The facts of the case on hand are identical as discussed above. Thus, respectfully following the same, we delete the penalty imposed by the Revenue.
Pudukad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21st October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 44AB
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Income Tax Officer, WD-3(3), Pmt Building vs Oring Industrial Networki Ng Private…ITA 181/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ITO, Lower Parel vs Shreeji Paper Corporation, Dn NagarITA 2966/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026