UDUMBANNOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI DIST vs. THE ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 143/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal is considering the assessee's grievance regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271B. The assessee's primary argument is that the audit requirement was already fulfilled by a competent authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Udumbannoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is in appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271B for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee contends that its books of accounts were already audited by a competent authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the assessee's books have already been audited by a competent authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.08.2024

Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048082581(1) dated 19.12.2022, in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) .

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee sole substantive grievance that both the ld. lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying s. 271B penalty, it is contended that this taxpayer’s books had already been audited by the competent authority, i.e. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala. Learned counsel further submits that section 44AB, third provision itself envisages leverage to such a compliance of audit; which in turn, has been Udumbannoor SCB Limited. duly acknowledged in s. 271B as well. The assessee next takes us to the impugned penalty provisions, i.e. s. 271B wherein the corresponding audit is as required u/s. 44AB of the Act only. That being the case, learned counsel accordingly argues that once the assessee has satisfied the rigor of s. 44AB itself in the foregoing terms, then s. 271B penalty could not have been imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The Revenue on the other hand strongly argues that s. 271B stipulates that tax audit report should be filed within the statutory limit provided in the Act, therefore, the impugned penalty deserves to be sustained.

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.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th Day of August, 2024.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →