The Sub-Registrar, Fatehgarh Sahib V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 1184/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1418 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (B) BEFORE SH.N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1184,1185, 1186 & 1189/CHD/2010 F.Y. 2005-06,2006-07,2008-09 & 2007-08 THE SUB REGISTRAR, V DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX(CIB) TEHSIL OFFICE, KHAMANO, CHANDIGARH. FATEHGARH SAHIB. TAN :PTLT-11146C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY JAIN RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAI SHREE SHARMA ORDER PER N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR,VP THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, TEHSIL OFFICE, KHAMANO, FATEHGARH SAHIB, CONSISTING OF IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HENCE THE SAME ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE BROUGHT BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATIO N IS WHETHER THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGAR H WAS JUSTIFIED BY PENALIZING THE APPELLANT U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RECORDED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), T HE SUB REGISTRAR IS HELD LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271FA OF T HE ACT AT 2 RS.100/- PER DAY FOR PENALTY WHICH WAS CALCULATED F OR THE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER : FINANCIAL YEAR PERIOD OF DEFAULT NO. OF DAYS OF DEFAULT AMOUNT 2005-06 1.9.2006 TO 28.12.2009 1214 RS.1,21,400/- 2006-07 1.9.2007 TO 28.12.2009 849 RS.84,900/- 2007-08 1.9.2008 TO 28.12.2009 484 RS.48,400/- 2008-09 1.9.2009 TO 28.12.2009 119 RS.11,900/- TOTAL 266 DAYS RS.2,66,600/- 4. AGGRIEVED THE APPELLANT IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US W ITH THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE DIRECTOR IF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY PENALIZING THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPLIES FILED BY APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN PENALIZING U/S 271FA BY RS.1,21,400/-/RS.84,900/-/RS.11,900/-RS.48,400/-FOR FY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 AND 2007-08 FOR NON- FILING OF AIR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE FAC TS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPELLANT CAN FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTLY WITHOUT FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(AP PEALS). IN THIS CONNECTION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT NOW THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED IN F.NO.279/M-31/2010-SO(ITJ) ON THIS POINT. HE ALSO FILED ON RECORD A COPY OF PAGE NO. 5 & 6 OF THE SAID NOTIFIC ATION. WE FIND THAT IN THE ABOVE NOTIFICATION, THE CBDT HA S 3 CLARIFIED THAT U/S 246A(1)(Q), OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO DISPOSE OF ANY PENALTY L EVIED U/S 271FA AND THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BAR ON CIT(APP EALS) PASSING AN APPEAL ORDER AGAINST PENALTY ORDER PASSE D BY THE DIT (CIB), WHO IS EQUIVALENT TO THE RANK OF CIT(APPEALS). IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AB OVE CIRCULAR THAT WHETHER CIT(APPEALS) AND DIT(CIB) ARE EQUIVALENT IN RANK OR NOT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSU E AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CIT(APPEAL S) CAN HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED U/S 27 1FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(CIB). FURTHER IT IS CLARIFIED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT U /S 246A(1)(Q) OF INCOME TAX ACT, CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER CHAPTER XXI OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE CBDT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAV E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) BEFORE FILING AN APPEAL DIRECTLY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS POS ITION, WE ARE DISMISSING ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE AP PELLANT. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.02.2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (N.BARATHVAJA SANKA R) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 22 ND FEB.,2011. POONAM COPY TO : THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT (A)/ THE CIT/THE DR.