Case Law Details
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Pithily stated, the assessee filed return of income on 29.03.2010 declaring loss of Rs. 8,92,526/-. Subsequently to that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee derives income from banking activity basically in the type of giving out loans to the farmers. After examining the various aspect and documents, the return income shown by the assessee accepted by the AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2011. On 16.06. 2014 the ld. AO issued a notice u/s. 271B stating that since assessee have failed in complying with the provision of section 44AB read with 271B assessee is liable for penalty u/s. 271B of the Act and therefore, asked to to show cause as to why the penalty under section 271B of the should not be levied.
The only issue which the ld. AR has assailed is the levy of penalty by the assessing officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR stated that there is no finding of alleged default or no whisper in the assessment order passed on 31.12.2011. There is no notice issued after the completion of the assessment for the alleged default but suddenly on 16.06.2014 (APB-page 3) the assessing officer has issued a notice asking the assessee as to show cause as to why the penalty order should not be passed under section 271B of the Act. This notice is also vague and specific default is specified by the ld. AO. The ld. AR also submitted that since the assessment is completed as per return of income there is no revenue loss and even the audit report have been submitted before the assessing officer which is of dated 24.12.2014 and has rectified the mistake if any and has placed on record that report.
On perusal of the records and arguments of the both the parties it is not disputed by both the parties that there is no finding in the assessment order for levy of penalty for the alleged default u/s. 271B of the Act and it is also not disputed that after passing of the order on 31.12.2011, the alleged notice is only issued on 16.06.2014 after two and half year time which is very abnormal time to fasten the liability on account alleged default after the assessment is completed. In between there is not notice and even the assessment order is silent on the levy of the alleged penalty. The argument of the ld. AR has thus, forced and is also supported by the judicial decisions relied upon and as extracted here in above. In the light of the above discussion the levy of penalty by the assessing officer after passage 30 months after the completion of the assessment, we are of the opinion that the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation and consequently penalties levied under section 271B cannot be sustained and thus we delete the said penalty levied under section 271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
