TEHSILDAR/ SUB REGISTRAR, Alwar V. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, Jaipur

ITA 1061/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3050 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Ignorance of law
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN AND SHRI V DURGA RAO) ITA NO.1061/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PAN : JPRTO 1532 G THE TEHSILDAR /SUB-REGISTRAR VS. THE DIRECTOR OF I NCOME TAX MAHUWA (CIB), RAJASTHAN DISTT. DAUSA JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI A.K. KHANDELWAL DATE OF HEARING: 22-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22-04-2013 ORDER PER V DURGA RAO, JM:- THE ASSESSEE TEHSILDAR/ SUB-REGISTRAR, MAHUA HAS FILED THIS APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 12-09-2011 DISPUTING THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 39,900/- U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SECTION 2 85 BA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH RULE 114E OF THE INCOME TAX RULES REQUIRES THE SPECIFIED PERSON(S) REFERRED TO THEREIN, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE F OR REGISTERING OR 2 MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS CO NTAINING OF A RECORD OF ANY SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR) IN R ESPECT OF SUCH SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH IS REGISTERED OR RECOR DED BY HIM DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY. THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR) AS AFORESAID HAS TO BE FUR NISHED BY 31 ST AUGUST OF THE YEAR SUCCEEDING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN THE PRESC RIBED PROFORMA / MANNER. 2.2 THE TEHSILDAR/ SUB-REGISTRAR, MAHUWA, DISTT. DA USA (RAJASTHAN) WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE AIR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED BY HIM THAT EXCEEDED THE PRES CRIBED LIMITS BY 31-08- 2008 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. 2.3 THE DIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14-05- 2009 BY ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY PRESCRIBED U/ S 271FA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR NON-FILING OF THE AIR. THE DIT I SSUED REMINDERS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28-08-2009 AND 5-11-2009 BUT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DIT. THE DIT THE REAFTER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT READ WITH RU LE 114E OF THE I.T. RULES BY MAKING THE TEHSILDAR/ SUB-REGISTRAR RESPON SIBLE FOR NON-FILING OF THE AIR AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 39,900/-. 3 2.4 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT DUE TO IGNORANCE OF LAW, THE AIR WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE CONCERNED INC OME TAX AUTHORITY AND THE SAME MAY BE EXCUSED AND PENALTY MAY BE DELETED. . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO FURNISH THE AIR FOR THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2007-08 IN VIEW OF NEW INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 114E OF I.T. RULES BY 31 ST AUGUST, 2008 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNIS H THE SAME BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND IGNOR ANCE OF LAW HAS NO EXCUSE. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.5 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDER BONA FIDE MISTAKE HAS NOT FILED THE AIR BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME T AX AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE EXCUSE D AND PENALTY MAY BE DELETED. 2.6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T IT IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE AIR BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AS PER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 114E OF I.T. RULES AND IGNORANCE OF LAW HAS NO EXCUSE. THE LD. DR RELI ED UPON THE ORDER DATED 07-03-2013 OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF TEHSILDAR V S. DIT (CIB), RAJASTHAN 4 IN ITA NO. 82/JP/2012. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR IN THE CASE JALORE NA GARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IN SPECIAL BENCH C IVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3687/2007 DATED 9 TH AUG. 2011 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E PENALTY MAY BE CONFIRMED. 2.7 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVO LVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH THE AIR U/S 285 BA OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 114E OF THE I.T. RULES OR NOT. IT IS UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE AIR TO THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX A UTHORITY AS PER TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IT IS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. IN THIS CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE AIR AS PER PRESCRIBED TIME I.E. 31-08-2008, THE DIT ISSUED A NOTICE ON 14-05-2009 A ND REMINDERS ON 28-08- 2009 AND 5-11-2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION. HE HAS ONLY CONTENDED BEFORE THE DIT THAT NON-FURNISHING O F THE AIR BY THE ASSESSEE IS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. HE NEVER EXPLAINED THE REASONS BEFORE THE DIT FOR NON-FILING THE AIR IN TIME. IT WAS 5 ALSO NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE AIR AS PER PRESCRIBED LIMITED U /S 285BA READ WITH RULE 114E OF I.T. RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPL AIN HIS BONA FIDE MISTAKE FOR NON-FILING THE AIR IN TIME. IN SO FAR AS THE AR GUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE IGNORANCE OF LAW HAS NO EXCUSE. IT IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPL Y WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE DIT. UNDER THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF TEHSILDAR VS. DIT (CIB), RAJASTHAN (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT COMPLIANCE WAS TAKEN IN CASUAL WAY AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ENQUIRE AS TO WHETHER RETURN HAS B EEN FILED OR NOT AND THUS THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALORE NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW I S NO EXCUSE. NEITHER THE PETITIONER BANK POINTED OUT AS TO WHAT IS THE ERROR IN THE COMMISSIONERS INVOKING THE WELL-KNOWN DICTUM IGNORANCE OF LAW I S NOT AN EXCUSE OR ON WHAT CONCEIVABLE LEGAL GROUND THIS COURT CAN COME T O A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BY RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF 6 THE TRIBUNAL AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UP HELD. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-04-2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. JAIN) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 22 ND APRIL, 2013 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- BY ORDER 1. THE TEHSILDAR/ SUB-REGISTRAR, MAHUA, DISTT. DAUS A 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), JAIPUR 3. THE LD. CIT (A), ALWAR 4. THE LD. CIT 5..THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO.1061/JP/11) A.R. ITAT: JA IPUR 7 8