##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos.78 & 79/LKW/2025

A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2021-22

PDAisNtr:i cAtA CAoAopPe8r8a3ti3vHe Bank Limited, vs. Addl / JDIT (I & CI)

Civil Lines Kachehri, Shahjahanpur

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv

Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Date of hearing: 09.12.2025

Date of pro nouncement: O R D3 0E. 0R1 .2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of

the ld. CIT(A), NFAC for the Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2021-22 wherein the

ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the penalty levied under section 271FA of the

Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 9,73,000/- for the Assessment Year 2019-20

and under section 271FAA amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for the Assessment Year

2021-22 that was levied by the ld. AO for failure to file statement of financial

transactions / furnishing of incorrect information in the statement of financial

transactions. AT.hYe. 2 g0r1o9u-n2d0s of appeal are as under:-

“1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] has erred on facts and in law in

confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in imposing a penalty of Rs.9,73,000/-by

passing an order u/s 271FA of the I.T. Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as

the "Act"] by observing that the assessee did not file its statement of specified

Financial Transactions falling under the SFT Code 001 and 002

1.2 On the facts stated in the statement of facts the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified

at all in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.9,73,000/-by treating the

1

ITA Nos.78 & 79/LKW/2025

District Cooperative Bank Limited

A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2021-22

appellant as a "person in default" and hence the penalty so imposed deserves

to be deleted.

2. The Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant

reasonable opportunity to have its say on the merit of the case.”

A.Y. 2021-2022

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] has erred on facts and in law in

confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-by

passing an order u/s 271FAA of the I.T. Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as

the "Act"] for filing incorrect information of the specified financial

transactions reportable under the code 003 and 004.

2. The Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant

reasonable opportunity to have its say on the merit of the case.”

2. It is seen that the appeal for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is delayed by

18 days. A condonation petition has been filed by the assessee in which it has been

submitted that the penalty order was passed on 20.11.2024 and the assessee was

obliged to file its appeal before 24.01.2025 but it could not do so because it was

advised by its counsel to opt for the VSVS, 2024. However, while filling up the form

for the VSVS, 2024, the assessee realized that it could not opt for the said scheme

on the ground that the impugned order was passed after 22.07.2024 and hence it

was ineligible. By the time, it came to know that it was ineligible to avail the

benefits of the scheme, the time period for filing the appeal had already passed. It

was for this reason that the assessee was compelled to file its appeal with a delay

and it was prayed that since the same was not on account of any negligence or mala

fide intent, the same may kindly be condoned. After considering the circumstances

enumerated by the assessee in its condonation petition, the delay in filing the

appeal for the A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned and both appeals are taken up for hearing.

3. The facts of the case are that in assessment year 2018-19, the assessee

failed to file statement of financial transactions under SFT Codes- 001, 002 and

005 for the F.Y. 2018-19. Thereafter, a notice under section 285 BA (5) was issued

to the filer. The assessee did not