Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The assessee is a society registered under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. The objects of the assessee society are to carry on the business of banking by accepting deposits and lending money to the members of the Sahakari. The assessee's business activities carried on are similar to the business of banking carried on by Co-operative Banks formed and registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1959. There was a survey under section 133A of the Act on 24.01.2018 at the headquarters of the assessee at Bellary. In the course of survey, it was noticed that assessee has not filed Annual Information Report (AIR) for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2014-15, despite the fact that the assessee had reportable transactions in terms of section 285BA(2) of the Act. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 26.09.2018 was issued for imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act since assessee had not filed AIR as per the provisions of section 285BA(2) of the Act r.w.r. 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee filed objections to the notice issued under section 271FA of the Act. The AO not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the assessee, imposed penalty under section 271FA of the Act. The details of the Assessment Year and penalty imposed under section 271FA of the Act are as under:

 It was contended by the assessee that only after 01.04.2015 in view of the specific amendment under Rule 114E of the Rules, the assessee was liable to furnish the AIR and hence not liable for penalty under section 271FA of the Act.

 It was further contended that no specific notice was issued under section 285BA(5) of the Act.

 Lastly, it was contended that there was a "reasonable cause" as mandated under section 271B of the Act for not imposing penalty under section 271FA of the Act.

the bonafide belief that it was not required to file the AIR return under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] erred in upholding the penalty imposed u/s.271FA of the Act without appreciating the aforesaid explanation of the appellant constituted enable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of 285BA and hence, in terms of section 273B of the Act, the penalty imposed ought to have been cancelled.

3. 2 The learned CIT[A] further erred in not following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT relied upon by the appellant on the ground that the Hon'ble RAT has not looked into the fact that co-

operative banks are governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which failure to follow the binding decision of the ITAT amount to judicial indiscipline.

4. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the learned JDIT (I & CI) was not the prescribed authority in terms of section 285BA[1] of the Act, as it stood for the relevant assessment year Lander appeal and consequently, the order imposing penalty is a nullity and the same requires to be annulled.