The District Registrar, Sivagangai V. DIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4205 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, GF MUTHUPATTINAM, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGA -1. [PAN: MRIDO 0582B] VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (I & CI), CHENNAI 34. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE *+& ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR NAIK, JCIT ' /DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2017 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.06.2017 /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, MADURAI, IN ITA NO. 0111/2011-12 DATED 24.10.2016. :-2-: ITA NO. 1/MDS/2017 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (I & CI), CHENNAI FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, HAS FAILED TO FURNISH AIR F OR FINANCIAL YEAR2009-10 WITHIN THE DUE DATE, INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 27 1FA AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 46,400/- FOR THE PERIOD OF 01 ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 TO 8 TH DECEMBER, 2011. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-2, MADURAI. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL, IN LIMINIE, FOR THE RE ASON THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 271FA IS NOT PROVIDED UNDER 2 46A OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WHI CH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CLAUSE Q OF SECTION 246A PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL REMEDY FROM THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER CHAPTER XXI AND SECTION 2 71FA IS PLACED WITHIN THIS CHAPTER AND HENCE, THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL IS UNTEN ABLE IN LAW. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER STA TUTORY OBLIGATION TO FILE AIR INFORMATION, ONLY IF IT EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 285BA AN D THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING EXCEEDED THE LIMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO B E IN DEFAULT AND HENCE THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UN TENABLE IN LAW ETC. THE AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) VS RAVI VIJAY & ANOTHER & OTHER S, S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11458/2011, 11914/2011, DATED 09.07.2012 WHICH IS REPORTED IN 2012 (9) TMI (TAXMANAGEMENTINDIA.COM) 652 AND TOOK US TO THE RATIO LAID THEREIN THAT :-3-: ITA NO. 1/MDS/2017 AN ORDER U/S. 271FA (CHAPTER XXI) OF THE ACT, 1961, IS PLAINLY APPEALABLE U/S. 246A(1)(Q) OF THE 1961 ACT AND NO AMOUNT OF INTERPR ETATIVE EXERCISE CAN DISPLACE LAW AS ENACTED. PER CONTRA, THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE COPY OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS DECISION FILED BY THE AR. T HERE IS MERIT IN THE ARS SUBMISSION AND HENCE, THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ' # /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 20 TH JUNE, 2017 JPV ' *34 54 /COPY TO: 1. &/ APPELLANT 2. *+& /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4 * /DR 6. /GF