KAYAMKULAM CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 1, ALAPPUZHA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report. The filing of the TAR is independent of the return of income filing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a co-operative bank, filed its return of income along with a Tax Audit Report (TAR) for AY 2017-18. The TAR was filed after the due date specified under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271B is leviable for late filing of the Tax Audit Report. Whether the assessee provided a valid explanation for the delay in filing the TAR.
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 Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember
O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee agitating the confirmation of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) levied vide order dated 14.01.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A)’) vide order dated 23.11.2022.
The assessee, a co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, filed it’s return of income disclosing a turnover of Rs.12.87 crores, on 29.03.2018, furnishing along with the Tax Audit Report (TAR) in Form 3CA. The said report was, in terms of section 44AB of the Act,required to be filed by the due date of furnishing the return of income as specified u/s.139(1) of the Act, i.e., by 30.9.2017. This was observed during the course of assessment proceedings, which culminated in the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019, and the assessee,
ITANo. 56/Coch/2023 (AY: 2017-18) Kayamkulam Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO accordingly, show caused under section 271B r/ws. 274, i.e., for violation of section 44AB, vide notice dated 30.12.2019. The assessee explained the receipt of audit report from theCooperative Auditor in March, 2008 as the reason, which was found not valid by the Assessing Officer (AO) as the same did not explain the late filing of Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA, i.e., from the Tax Auditor. The filing of the TAR is independent of the filing of the return of income. The assessee reiterated it’s case in first appeal, whereby it was observed that the assessee had not furnished the requisite details, much less substantiating the same, viz. the date on which the Cooperative Auditor signed the report; the date on which the said report was filed with the Revenue inasmuch as the same was, equally, i.e., vide proviso thereto, required to be filed under section 44AB of the Act. The penalty levied was accordingly confirmed, against which the assessee is in second appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions, and perused the material on record. There is nothing on record to exhibit the date on which the TAR was obtained by the assessee-bank, filed by it along with the return of income on 29.3.2018, even as the law requires it to be obtained and furnished by the date specified u/s.139(1) for furnishing the return of income, i.e., latest by 31.10.2019 (for that year), much less explain the delay in furnishing the same. No clear reply in this regard was also furnished by Sh. Antony, the assessee’s counsel, during the hearing, who would rather admit to the statutory audit report from the Registrar of Societies, which is also to be filed by the date specified u/s. 44-AB,to have been not furnished at all. The record (PB-1) shows the same to have been obtained on 26.2.2018. The question of explaining the delay by the assessee would arise only where it is furnished with a delay. In the instant case, it, though equally required to be furnished u/s. 44AB along with the TAR, has admittedly not been furnished even after being obtained. No reason for the same has been advanced, much less reasonable Page 2
ITANo. 56/Coch/2023 (AY: 2017-18) Kayamkulam Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO cause for the default proved, as the law, per s. 273B, requires for excluding penalty. Further, this is apart from the unexplained delay in obtaining and furnishing the TAR, filed only on 29/3/2018. Under the circumstances, we find no explanation, much less proving the reasonable cause for the delay, which in fact is a continuing one. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. We decide accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
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. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
