Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 36 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271FA - Appellant failed to file the SFT [Statement of Financial Transaction] by due date and also to avail the opportunity granted u/s 285BA(5) and failed to provide any explanation for its default - reasons of delay given was that the assessee bank was working with 15 branches at different places in Jhalawar district and in some cases branches are situated in rural areas where due to network connectivity problem the report which was required for filing SFT could not be generated within the due time and thus the said SFT return was filed after due date - HELD THAT:- We cannot lost sight of the fact that it is acknowledged and judicially recognized fact that tax laws of this country are complex and complicated and often required for compliance, there with assistance of tax practitioners specializing in this field, is well-known fact and it is equally well-known fact that legislation in this field underwent so frequent changes and amendments that it was not possible for even person specializing in this field, including tax administrator, to claim that he knew what exactly law was on particular given day or period without making references to history of enactments. Thus in these circumstances no malafides could be attributed to assessee so as to invoke penalty proceedings under section 271FA and DIT should have taken note that breach was only technical or venial breach of provisions and such breach could have flown from bonafide ignorance of assessee that he was liable to act in manner prescribed by statute, and should not have invoked penalty proceedings. See Durgapur Steel Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. Director of Income-tax [2016 (11) TMI 207 - ITAT KOLKATA] And even if some default was found to be there in filing the SFT, the same at the best was merely a technical and venial breach of law and the conduct of the assessee in the particular has not been shown to be contumacious and no deliberate defiance of law is established on record by the revenue authorities. See Hindustan Steels vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus we delete the penalty and allow the grounds of the assessee.
|