9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The grounds raised in ITA No.261(Asr)2013, which are identical in all other appeals are reproduced hereunder: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the penalty imposed u/s 271FA of the Income tax Act, 1961 for non-filing the AIR within time as prescribed u/s 114E(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. That the assessee is a part of Revenue Department of State of Punjab Government. So, the penalty on the State Government can not be imposed and accordingly liable to be quashed. 3. That the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the AIR for the whole district was to be filed by the Registrar of the Ferozepur District and he might have filed the same within time. Accordingly, there was a reasonable cause. So, the penalty is liable to be quashed. 4. That the advisory letter issued on 20.11.2006 can not be considered as notice u/s 258BA(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not received the same as the same was not served according to section 282 read with order V of CPC. The default should be counted from the notice issued u/s 285BA(5) in September, 2010 as the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as per order of Director of Income Tax (CIB) vide order dated 24.03.2011 and order of CIT(A) Bhatinda dated 29.01.2013 and accordingly prayed to allow the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee further relied upon the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and available in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, dated 30.05.2013 in ITA Nos. 137 to 140(Asr)/2013 and others in the case of The Sub Registrar, Bariwala, Distt. Muktsar vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh others since the issue is identical. He also argued that the order of CIT(A) for the later year of DIT (CIB) in other case cannot over-ride the decision of higher authority i.e. ITAT, Amritsar Bench, rather order of ITAT should be followed by the lower authorities. The requirement under section 285BA is to file AIR in time even if the number documents registered are nominal and there cannot be any exception to this extent. This finding has already been given by the CIT(A) at page 5 of his order. As regards other matters, he again relied upon the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench (supra) in ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly 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 furnish an annual information return under sub-section (1) has not furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r remand report, as argued by the ld. DR and also record of DIT(CIB) which has been verified by the ld. counsel that various notices have been served i.e. on 20.11.2006, 04.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 12.03.2010. All the said seven notices remained un-complied 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 31.01.2011 before the ld. CIT(A), Bathinda. The Ld. CIT(A) s order dated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 09.01.2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. 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 ld. counsel for the assesse is rejected that no notice u/s 285BA(5) has been issued/served upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
