9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n u/s. Subsections 2(B) of Section 254 of the Act to impose cost on the Revenue to be paid to the appellant to compensate the harassment caused by the officers of the Revenue at fault to the appellant to some extent - Decided in the favour of the assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the members of the Managing Committee of the appellant are not much educated and thus have no knowledge of intricate provisions of taxation laws. The staff of the appellant and the members of the managing committee of the appellant were under the bonafide belief that since the appellant is a credit co-operative society, dealing only with its members, the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T of the I.T. Act 1961 were inapplicable to it. This bonafide belief was further re-inforced by the fact that neither the statutory auditors nor the tax auditors of the appellant Society apprised it about the correct legal positions. 3. The Ld. A.R. pointed out that on coming to know about the correct legal provisions, the appellant Society in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g decisions of ITAT Pune and Hon'ble Bombay High Court and confirmed the penalty. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted further that it is also pertinent to note that the Ld CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 3rd February 2010 which was served on the appellant after 31st March 2010. However, the impugned order was sent to the A.O. immediately, who attached the Bank Accounts of the appellant u/s. 226(3) of the Act on 29.3.2010. The administrative intervention of the Ld CIT - II on the request of the appellant, a xerox copy of the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) was given to the appellant on 30th March 2010 at 1540 hrs. The Departmental authority were bent upon recovering the illegal demand from the appellant for achieving its recovery targets. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is claiming the bill for proceedings before I.T.A.T. only. iv. Rs.35,000.00 or the amount that may be deemed fit and proper by the Hon. Bench as exemplary damages." 9. The Ld. A.R. also placed reliance on the following decisions with this prayer that it is a fit case for awarding the cost as prayed for in view of the provisions of the Section 254(2B) of the Act: i. Chiranji Lal Tak v/s Union of India, 252 I.T.R 0333 (Raj.) ii. Union of India v/s. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, order dated on 30/06/2004 (Pune) iii. Shri Shantaram R. Patil v/s. ITO, ITA Nos. 308 & 309/PN/03 iv. KEC International Ltd. v/s. B.R.Balkrishnan, 251 ITR 158(Bom.) 10. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, opposed the above contentions and request of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having different facts. 11. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Revenue has not met out the above submission of the Ld. A.R. that despite having made aware of the authorities below about CBDT Letter F. No. 415/6/2000-IT (Inv. I) dated 25th March 2004 and Circular dated 10.9.2008 issued by the Office of the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune again conveying the advice of the CBDT, the same were ignored by them. In the letter dt. 25th March 2004, the CBDT has advised that penalties u/s. 271-D and 271-E for violation of the provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T, respectively, should not be indiscriminately imposed. The provisions of Section 273-B should be taken in view before imposing the penalties. Based upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been unnecessarily subjected to the harassment caused by the actions of the authorities below which were not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is thus a fit case for invoking the provisions laid down u/s. Subsections 2(B) of Section 254 of the Act to impose cost on the Revenue to be paid to the appellant to compensate the harassment caused by the officers of the Revenue at fault to the appellant to some extent. We, accordingly award a cost of Rs.5000/- against the Revenue which is to be paid to the appellant Credit Society within 3 months from the end of the month in which order of the Tribunal is received by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax concerned. The Ground No. 3 is accordingly allowed in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
