Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 848 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction under Section 80P - Claim denied on the ground that the respondent/assessee is not a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1912 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had come into existence for development and growth of agricultural sector. This finding of fact has not been disputed in the present appeals. Assessing authority,itself has recorded a finding that the respondent-assessee came into existence w.e.f. 31.03.2008, after amalgamation of the two Regional Rural Banks (RRB) i.e. Baroda Eastern U.P. Gramin Bank and Baroda Western Gramin Bank. It has not been disputed that by virtue of deeming provision under Section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the respondent/assessee is deemed cooperative society. As perused the impugned common order of the Tribunal arising from the assessment order and we do not find any legal infirmity in it. So far as the impugned common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal arising out of the penalty order under Section 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of the fact that there is no evidence of concealment of income. Tribunal has concluded that the appellant had made a legitimate claim for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) which was purely a legal in nature and even on rejection of such a claim, no penalty is leviable. The case of the ‘appellant RRB’ is even on a better footing as all the five appeals for the corresponding assessment years have been allowed by us on merits therefore, in terms of our four separate orders of date We have perused the impugned common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal arising from the penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and we find that it also does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Matter is also concluded by the findings of the fact. No substantial questions of law
|