9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act in ITA No.47 of 2014 to Sub Registrar, Malout loses significance in the absence of such contention having been raised before the authorities below. Assessee relies upon Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] - There was also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It was further noticed that the action of the assessee was bonafide and due to inadvertent error for which no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed. The factual matrix being different in the present appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 344 of 2013(O&M) - - - Dated:- 21-7-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.344 of 2013, 2, 4, 8, 9, 39 to 49 and 51 to 59 of 2014 as the Tribunal vide one consolidated order dated 30.5.2013 impugned in these appeals decided the same. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.344 of 2013. 2. ITA No.344 of 2013 has been prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad no occasion of availing assistance of any Chartered Accountant or a Tax consultant, therefore in the light of section 273B was not liable to be visited with any penalty under section 271FA of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act in the hands of the appellant on the basis of premature observations, findings and investigations? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penalty imposed by the respondent under section 271FA beyond the time limitation prescribed under section 275(1) (c) of the Act? 6. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice while disposing of the appeal of the appellant vide consolidated order dated 30.5.2013 passed with respect to 39 appeals pertaining to 10 different appellants, by solely referring to the facts involved in the case of :The Joint Sub Registrar Bariwala, District Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh (ITA No.137(Asr)/2013, and rather bypassing the facts and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in its case, specifically when the same as in comparison to the facts involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee had acted bonafide and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of Section 273B of the Act. A reference was made to judgment reported as Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited vs. CIT and another, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). In ITA No.344 of 2013, it was also urged that Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat could not have been penalized as the provision of Section 285BA of the Act uses the expression Registrar or Sub-Registrar . In such circumstances, the levy of penalty was bad. Additionally, in ITA No.47 of 2014 (The Sub Registrar, Malout, District Muktsar vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh), it was contended that the requisite information was supplied manually and no notice under section 285BA(4) of the Act was issued that the information which was supplied was defective. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any notice issued under section 285BA(4) of the Act, the levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act was not called for. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. Section 285BA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e; or (c) transaction under a works contract; or (d) transaction by way of an investment made or an expenditure incurred; or (e) transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit, which may be prescribed. Provided that the Board may prescribe different values for different transactions in respect of different persons having regard to the nature of such transaction : Provided further that the value or, as the case may be, the aggregate value of such transactions during a financial year so prescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (4) Where the prescribed income-tax authority considers that the annual information return furnished under sub-section (1) is defective, he may intimate the defect to the person who has furnished such return and give him an opportunity of rectifying the defect within a period of one month from the date of such intimation or within such further period which, on an application made in this behalf, the prescribed incometax authority may, in his discretion, allow; and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of one month or, as the case may be, the further period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided by the said authority. The period for removing the defect would be one month from the date of intimation or any further period which the prescribed income tax authority may allow. In the event of failure to cure the defect, such return shall be treated to be invalid and all consequences under the Act shall follow as if no such return had been filed. According to sub section (5), where any person who is required to furnish an annual information return has not furnished the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed income tax authority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice. 9. A notification has been issued on 1.12.2004 prescribing Rule 114E relating to furnishing of annual information return. The form and manner in which the annual information return shall be furnished has been prescribed in this rule. Clause (2) of the Table prescribes the persons who shall furnish annual information return. The nature of transactions is specified in corresponding entry of Clause (3) thereof. Under Rule 114E, such return shall be furnished in Form No.61A and shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the annual information return (in short, AIR) and no penalty should be accordingly levied upon the assessee. In this regard, we are of the view on perusal of section 285BA of the Act, which was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f 1.4.2005, it is not the case that this section has been introduced for the first time by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. Prior to its substitution section 285BA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 where any assessee who enters into any financial transaction, as may be prescribed, with any other person, shall furnish, within the prescribed time, an annual information return in such form and manner, as may be prescribed in respect of such financial transaction entered into by him during any previous year. Rule 114A to 114E prescribes such return to be furnished in Form No.61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. At item No.6 of the said rule, return shall be furnished on or before 31st August, immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. Section 285BA(5) is reproduced for the sake of clarity as under:- Section 285BA(5) Where a person who is required to furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee dated 20.11.2006 and which has not been complied with. As per remand report, as argued by the learned DR and also record of DIT(CIB) which has been verified by the learned counsel that various notices have been served i.e. on 20.11.2006, 4.4.2007, 11.1.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.5.2009, 20.1.2010 and 12.3.2010. All the said seven notices remained uncomplied with, at the last known address given by the assessee which is as under:- Sub Registrar Bariwala Muktsar 15.3. Penalty order dated 22.12.2010 has been served on the assessee is not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31.1.2011 before the learned CIT(A) Bathinda. The learned CIT(A) s order dated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 9.1.2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee that one notice dated 20.11.2006 having mentioned wrong district is part of the paper book cannot prove that the notice dated 20.11.2006 and other six notices as mentioned hereinabove have not been issued and served on the assessee. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar to facts in Sub Registrar, Bariwala with an additional fact that the Sub Registrar, Muktsar had filed the Annual Information Return for the assessment year 2005-06 on 8.3.2006 after a delay of 97 days which shows that the assessee was very much aware of the provisions of Section 285BA of the Act, whereas for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, it was filed on 3.11.2010. It was concluded that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in the absence of any satisfactory explanation having been furnished by him. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. 15. Still further, though appeals in the cases of Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda were not argued separately being identical on facts with the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the question whether there exists reasonable or sufficient cause in terms of Section 273B of the Act is a question of fact dependent upon appreciation of the material and the plea raised by the assessee. In the present case, the assessing authority on appreciation of material had concluded that the filer of the returns was habitual defaulter without any concern or respect for the law. The CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e we find no infirmity in the orders of the learned CIT(A). Our order will be identically applicable to the facts of the present cases before us in all the assessees of all the years. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessees in all the years are dismissed. The plausible explanations in terms of Section 273B of the Act in the cases of Sub Registrar, Talwandi Saboo, Sub Registrar, Lambi, Sub Registrar, Malout, Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, Sub Registrar, Doda and Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul are also similar and therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271FA of the Act cannot be faulted. 17. The Joint Sub Registrar is also the prescribed authority for the sub-district in terms of sections 6 and 7 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of any factual foundation having been laid before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty on the Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, the said plea raised for the first time before the High Court would not be permissible. Equally, the plea of no notice having been issued under Section 285BA(4) of the Act in ITA No.47 of 2014 to Sub Registrar, Malout loses significance in the absence of such contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
