IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `H' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.159/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Palhawas Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Palhawas, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 035 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AABAT7737P)
ITA No.160/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Sangwari Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Sangwari, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 401 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AABAT7812K)
ITA No.161/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Mundi Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Mundi, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 035 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AABAM2255P)
ITA No.162/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Manethi Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Manethi, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 035 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AABAM2190F)
ITA No.163/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Dharuhera Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Dharuhera, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 035 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AAAAD6248E)
2 ITA No.159 - 164/Del./2013
ITA No.164/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
The Mundi Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle,
VPO Mundi, Model Town,
Distt. Rewari 123 035 (Haryana). Rewari (Haryana).
(PAN : AABAT7737P)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA
REVENUE BY : Shri Sameer Sharma, Senior DR
ORDER
PER BENCH :
All these appeals emanate from the combined order of CIT (Appeals),
Rohtak dated 14.11.2012.
2. In all the grounds of appeals, the issue involved is against upholding
the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for not complying
the provisions of section 44AB.
3. The assessees are cooperative societies registered under the
Cooperative Societies Act, Haryana. These societies are engaged in the
business of borrowing, raising or taking up of money lending or advancing of
money for the purpose of agriculture and sale and purchase of seeds and urea.
These societies are financed by the District Central Co-op. Bank to provide
further credit facilities in its area on behalf of the State Government. The
assessees, being nodal agencies, run as per the guidelines of the State
3 ITA No.159 - 164/Del./2013
Government to facilitate the farmers for their credit requirements as well as to
fulfill seed, urea etc. requirements. The return of income was filed declaring
nil income by claiming deduction u/s 80P on gross receipts.
4. While pleading on behalf of the assessee the ld. AR submitted that as
per the requirement of law, the assessees were required to get its accounts
audited irrespective of the fact that where the income is taxable or deductible
or not. Admittedly, the assessees could not get its accounts audited, therefore,
the assessees become liable for penalty u/s 271B for failure to get its accounts
audited. The ld. AR submitted that this was the first year in which the
assessees were required to get its accounts audited. It was a bonafide mistake
on behalf of the assessees. Thereafter, the assessees are consistently getting
its accounts audited in all the subsequent years. He also pleaded that
assessees' case clearly falls u/s 273B where penalty cannot be imposed for
any failure when assessees have reasonable cause for the failure. In
assessees' case, it was a bonafide mistake. The ld AR also submitted a copy
of judgment of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s.
Iqbalpur Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Roorkee in ITA No.57
of 2007 order dated 12.02.2009 and pleaded that the facts of the case are
similar, therefore, the ratio of Hon'ble High Court is applicable to the
assessees' case also.
4 ITA No.159 - 164/Del./2013
5. We have heard both the sides on the issue. Having heard both the
parties and after going through the various orders and papers, we hold that the
assessee is a cooperative society and its income was deductible u/s 80P of the
Act. No doubt, under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, the assessee
was required to get its accounts audited irrespective of the fact whether the
income was taxable or not, however, this was the first year of the assessee and
accounts could not get audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the
Act on or before the due date. However, there appears to be no intention on
the part of the assessee to conceal its income or deprive the revenue from any
taxable income. In view of these facts, we hold that there was sufficient
cause for the assessees to make such bonafide mistake in the first year. Since
the assessees are getting its accounts audited subsequently regularly,
therefore, we find that the assessees' default is bonafide and we treat it a
sufficient cause for non-compliance. Therefore, we direct to delete the
penalties levied u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of April, 2014.
Sd/- sd/-
(C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated the 24th day of April, 2014
TS
5 ITA No.159 - 164/Del./2013
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A), Rohtak.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.
|
