Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2237 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-05-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
28-05-2013
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
07-03-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRJI1986C THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), BARIWALA, DISTT. MUKTSAR. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.130 TO 134(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRTI0819E THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), MUKTSAR. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.135 & 136(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 & 2009-2010 PAN :AMRJI2021C THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), DODA. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.141 TO 143(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRJI1987D THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), LAKHEWAI, DISTT. MUKTSAR. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A. NOS.144 TO 148(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRS15888F THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), MAUR MANDI, DISTT. BATHINDA. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.229 TO 232(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRJI1980D THE JOINT REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ( CIB), SANGAT. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.233 TO 237(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRJI2015D THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), LAMBI, DISTT. MUKTSAR. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.238 TO 241(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRTI1917D THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), MALOUT. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NOS.242 TO 246(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 TO 2009-2010 PAN :AMRS16404D THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), TALWANDI SABO. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 3 I.T.A. NOS.247 TO 248(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 & 2006-2007 PAN :AMRT11328C THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B), RAMPURA PHUL. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY:S/SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE & ASHWANI JUNEJA, ITP RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.L.CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 28/05/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS BUNCH OF 39 APPEALS ARISES FROM DIFFERENT ORD ERS OF CIT(A), BATHINDA, AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW: SL. NO. ITA NO. PARTICULARS ASSTT. YEAR CIT(A) DATE OR ORDER OF CIT(A) 1 TO 4 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA 2006-07 TO 2009-2010 BATHINDA 14.12.2012 5 TO 9 130 TO 134(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, MUKTSAR 2005-06 TO 2009-2010 -DO- -DO- 10 & 11 135 & 136(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, DODA 2008-09 & 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 12 TO 14 141 TO 143(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, LAKHEWALI 2007-09 TO 2009-10 -D0- -DO- 4 15 TO 19 144 TO 148(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, MAUR MANDI 2005-06 TO 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 20 TO 23 229 TO 232(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, SANGAT 2006-07 TO 2009-10 -DO- 31.01.2013 24 TO 28 233 TO 237(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, LAMBI 2005-06 TO 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 29 TO 32 238 TO 241(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, MALOUT 2006-07 TO 2009-10 -DO- 31.01.2013 33 TO 37 242 TO 246(ASR)2013 SUB REGISTRAR, TALWANDI 2005-06 TO 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 38 & 39 247 & 248(ASR)/2013 SUB REGISTRAR, RAMPURA PHUL 2005-06 & 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 2. IN ALL THE CASES, DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.137(ASR)2013, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL OTHER APPEALS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA ERRED ON FACTS AN D LAW IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY U/S 271FA. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOL DING THE PENALTY U/S 271FA WHILE REJECTING THE EXPLANATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE AIR WITHIN TIME AND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED B Y THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B. 5 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHO LDING THE PENALTY U/S 271FA WHILE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHA KARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTORS OF INCOME TAX. THE CASE LAW APPL IED B THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS NO NO TICE AS PROVIDED U/S 285BA(5) WAS ISSUED/SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN UPHOL DING THE PENALTY U/S 271FA WHILE GIVING THE FINDING THAT THE ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT MUST HAVE BEEN DELI VERED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDING OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ADVISORY LETTER WAS ISSUED/SERVED. OR ANY OTHER GROUND WHICH MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL T O ALL THE APPEALS IN THIS ORDER WITH RESPECT TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE ARE DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE ARGUED THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, BAIWALA F IRST AND THEREAFTER ARGUED THAT SINCE THE FACTS IN ALL OTHER APPEALS ARE IDENT ICAL, HIS ARGUMENTS SHALL BE IDENTICAL AND BE APPLIED IN ALL OTHER APPEALS MENTI ONED HEREINABOVE . 5. ACCORDINGLY, WE TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE SUB REGI STRAR, BARIWALA IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AND IN PARTICULAR IT A NO. 137(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND OUR ORDER HEREI N BELOW IN THE SAID APPEAL SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN ALL OTHER APPEALS OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, 6 BARIWALA AND ACCORDINGLY THE FACTS OF OTHER APPEAL S ARE ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THIS APPEAL. OUR ORDER HEREIN BELOW SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER APPEALS IN ITA NO.138(ASR)/2013 TO 140(ASR)/2013 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BA RIWALA. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS I.E. IN I TA NO.137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWAL A, DISTRICT MUKTSAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 ARE AS PER ORDER OF THE AO IN PARA 3.7 AT PAGES 2 TO 4 WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITEM NO. 6 OF THE TABLE IN RULE 114E SPECIFIES THAT THE REGISTRAR OR SUB-REGISTRAR APPOINTED U/S 6 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 IS REQUIRED TO FILE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION S OF PURCHASE OR SALE BY ANY PERSONS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT THI RTY LAKH RUPEES OR MORE. THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE AIR IS THE 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACT ION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. IN THE EVENT IF FAILURE TO FURNISH THE A IR, PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271FA WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL I NFORMATION RETURN, AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 285BA, FAILS TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT S UB-SECTION, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB-SECT ION MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SU M OF ONE HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTI NUES. AS PER THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, THE FILER HAS FI LED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS (AIRS) LATE, IN RESPECT OF PURC HASE AND SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT THIRTY L AKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006 -07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- SL. NO. FINANCIAL YEAR DUE DATE FOR FILING AIR FILED ON DELAY(IN DAYS) 1. 2004-05 30.11.2005 24.11.2010 1819 DAYS 2. 2005-06 31.08.2006 24.11.2010 1545 DAYS 3. 2006-07 31.08.2008 24.11.2010 1180 DAYS 7 4. 2007-08 31.08.2008 25.11.2010 816 DAYS 5. 2008-09 31.08.2009 24.11.2010 450 YS IN THIS REGARD SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE ON 14.09.2010 ASKING THE FILER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271 FA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON IT FOR FAI LURE TO FURNISH THE AIR IN TIME, AND THE REPLY WAS SOUGHT BY 28.10.2010 . HOWEVER, ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FIXING THE SAME DATE OF H EARING I.E. 28.10.2010 WAS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE VIDE THIS OFFI CE LETTER NO. DIT/CIB/CHD/2010-11/4963 DATED 15.10.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICES SHRI SANDDEEP KUMAR R.C. FROM OFFICE OF THE FILER APPEARED AND RE QUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS ALLOWED FOR 24.11.2010. ON 24.11.2010 NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRIT TEN REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ETC. WAS RECEIVED TILL THE CLOSING HOUR S OF THE DAY. HOWEVER, ON 25.11.2010 THE FILER MADE A REQUEST OVE R TELEPHONE TO ADJOURN THE CASE FOR SOME OTHER SUITABLE DATE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE HEARING IN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 10.12.2010. ON 10.12.2010 AGAIN THE FILER ITSELF DID NOT CHOSE TO ATTEND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS PERSONALLY OR THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED LE GAL REPRESENTATIVE, BUT SENT ITS R.C. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR, WHO FILED PRO OF REGARDING FILING OF AIR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. THE RELEVANT RECORD HAS BEEN PERUSED BY ME. IN THIS CASE NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT-FORTH BY THE FI LER REGARDING LATE FILING OF AIRS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION. NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE FILER WHICH MAY SHOW THAT THE FILER HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR LATE FILING OF THE AIRS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006 -07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. HENCE THE FILER HAS ENTIRELY FAILED TO CON STITUTE A VALID REASON U/S 273B OF THE ACT. THE FILER CANNOT BE ABS OLVED OF HIS STATUTORY DUTIES U/S 285BA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 FOR THE TIMELY FILING OF AIR FOR ALL THE FINANCIAL YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICES FOR FI LING OF AIRS FOR DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THIS O FFICE ON 20.11.2006, 4.4.2007,11.1.2008, 12.12.2008,21.05.2009, 20.01.20 10 AND ON 12.03.2010, WHICH ALSO REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. 8 THEREFORE, THE FILER HAS FAILED TO FILE THE AIRS IN TIME WITHOUT ANY VALID/REASONABLE CAUSE AND ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANA TION. FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE FILER HAS FI LED ITS AIRS LATE FOR THE ALL THE FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. F.YS 2004-05, 2005 -06, 2006-07, 2007- 08 & 2008-09. HENCE, THESE FACTS MAKE THE FILER A H ABITUAL DEFAULTER WITHOUT ANY CONCERN/RESPECT FOR THE LAW OF THE LAND . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE THAT SUITABLE P ENALTY AS PER LAW IS LEVIED ON THE FILER. THE PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT THOUGH THE INFORMA TION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WAS NIL, YET THE FILER HAS F ILED ITS AIR WITH NSDL. HENCE, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, PENALTY IS NOT LEVIED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE FILER IS HELD LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT, 1961 @ RS. 100/- PER DAY FOR DEFAULT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS CALCULATED AS UNDER: FINANCIAL PERIOD OF DEFAULT NO. OF DAYS OF DEFAULT AMOUNT OF PENALTY 2005-06 1.9.2006 TO 24.11.2010 1545 DAYS RS. 1,54,5 00/- 2006-07 1.9.2007 TO 24.11.2010 1180 DAYA RS. 1,18,0 00/- 2007-08 1.9.2008 TO 25.11.2010 816 DAYS RS. 81, 600/- 2008-09 1.9.2009 TO 24.11.2010 450 DAYS RS. 45, 000/- TOTAL 3991 DAYS RS. 3,99,100/- ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS. 3,99,100/-(3991X100) I S IMPOSED. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLANS TO THE FILER ACCO RDINGLY. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REQUESTED TO CONFRONT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DIT (CIB) CHAND IGARH AND ACCORDINGLY LD. CIT(A) REQUESTED THE DIT(CIB), CHANDIGARH TO S END THE RELEVANT RECORD. 9 THE DIT(CIV) HAS SENT THE REMAND REPORT DATED 19.11 1.2012 THROUGH I.T.O. (HQRS), CHANDIGARH ALONGWITH NECESSARY RECORDS WHIC H WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HIS ARGUMENTS ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 3 TO 5 OF CIT(A)S ORDER. THERE AFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PASSED THE ORDER, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER A ND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT AND I FIND THAT; 1. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUT ED POSITION THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AIR FOR THE RELEVANT FINAN CIAL YEAR ON OR BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH TH E SAID STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. 2. ACCORDING TO THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B THE APPELLANT HAD MADE OUT A REASON ABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE AIR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY U/S 271F SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPO SED. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT HE IS POSTED IN A MOFUSSIL AREA HAVING NO DEALING WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EXCEPT THE F ILING OF AIR, AND DID NOT HAVE THE HELP OF A TAX PROFESSIONAL BEC AUSE OF WHICH HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA AN D AS SUCH COULD NOT FILE THE AIR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD . 3. THE DIT(CIB), CHANDIGARH HAS GIVEN THE FINDING IN T HE PENALTY ORDER THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS DRAWN TO ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION BUT EVEN THAN THE APPELLANT CONTINUE TO IGNORE, HIS STATUTORY DUTY TO FILE THE AIR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE D PERIOD. 10 I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A/R OF THE A PPELLANT REGARDING THE IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA BU T ONCE THE ADVISORY LETTERS WERE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT DRAWI NG HIS ATTENTION TOWARDS HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF FILING THE AIR WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME, THE REASONABLE CAUSE I.E. BONAFIDE BELIEF DI SAPPEARS AND THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY LENIENCY UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FIRST LETTER DATED 20.011.2006 AND ANY DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AFTER THIS DATE WOULD BE VIEWED AS A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND AS SUCH, IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO, THE APPEL LANT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 273B OF THE A CT. THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (2011) 53 DTR (GUJ.) 321 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER; PENALTY UNDER S. 271FA DELAY IN FILING ANNUAL I NFORMATION RETURN- REASONABLE CAUSE- PETITIONER, A CO-OPERATIV E BANK SITUATED IN A MOFUSSIL AREA, WAS EXEMPT FROM INCOME-TAX UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80P(2)(A)(I) UPTO ASST. YR. 2006-0 7 AND WAS NOT HAVING THE ASSISTANCE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN VIEW OF THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER IT WOULD BE REASONABL E TO BELIEF THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF S . 285BA WHICH WERE BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK IN THE PRESENT FRO M W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2005- HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER THE ITO ISSUED NOT ICE UNDER S. 285BA(5) ON 17 TH DEC., 2008, THE PETITIONER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF S. 285BA- IT WAS ONLY WHEN A SE COND NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 11 TH SEPT. 2009, THAT THE PETITIONER FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN- THUS, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THA T THE PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY NOT AWARE OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION UNDER S. 285BA, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE PETITIONER TO TAKE SUCH DEFEN CE ONCE THE DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER S. 285BA(5) ON 1 7 TH DEC., 2008- IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE FIRST NOTICE- FACT THA T SUCH ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN CAME TO BE FURNISHED WITHIN A MO NTH FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE SECOND NOTICE FALSIFIES THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER THAT THERE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS AND THAT I T TOOK SOME TIME 11 TO GATHER THE INFORMATION- THUS, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENTERTAIN ANY BONA FIDE BELIEF OR TO PLEAD IGNORANC E OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 285BA FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF FIRST NOTICE UNDER S. 285BA(5)- DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE PETIT IONER HAS TO BE VIEWED AS A CONSCIENCE DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY O BLIGATION AND THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PR OVISIONS OF S. 273B IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO- PENALT Y IS DELETED FOR THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF SERVICE OF FIRST NOTICE UNDER S. 282BA(5)- FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD, PENALTY IS LEVI ABLE FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE FIRST NOTICE IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT ON IDENTICAL FACTS I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS COVERED BY THE PLEA OF THE REASONABLE CAUSE UPTO 30.11.2006 BECAUSE THE FIRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED ON 20.11.2006 AND SENT THROUGH POST AND IT MUST HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY UPTO 30.11.2006. HENCE, I DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO RE-COMPUTE THE P ENALTY U/S 271FA BY TAKING THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT W.E.F. 01.12.2006 INSTEAD OF 31.08.2006 ON WHICH HE WAS LIABLE TO FILE THE AIR, AND CHARGE THE PENALTY UPTO THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPELLANT FILED THE AIR WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE, AT OUTSET INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 4 WHICH IS A NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE CIT(CIB), CHANDIGARH TO TH E SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA. IT WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE ASS ESSEE. MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE, AT THE OUTSET ARGUED THAT THE ADDRESS MEN TIONED IN THIS LETTER IS AS UNDER: THE JT. SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA, BATHINDA 12 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE, MR. ARORA, ADV OCATE ARGUED THAT BARIWALA IS NOT IN BATHINDA AND THIS IS THE WRONG M ENTION OF THE ADDRESS AND THEREFORE, THIS NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW WHERE THE NOTICE IS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THEN NO VIEW AGAINST THE AS SESSEE CAN BE TAKEN FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VA RIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS UNDER: I) PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIT(CIB) (2 011) 338 ITR 167 (GUJ.) II) CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA (2012) 250 CTR (P &H) 195 III) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SH.SANJEEV KUMAR PROP. M/S. BHULLA MAL PARSHOTAM LAL IN ITA NO.358(SSR)/2006 RELATING TO A.Y. 2001`-02 DATED 9 TH JAN, 2007 IV) SHRI RAMAN GUPTA PROP. M/S. RAMAN & CO. JAMMU VS. A DDL CIT RANGE-2, JAMMU IN ITA NO.05(ASR)/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DATED 31/01/2011 V) CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAG RIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN (2011) 338 I TR 167 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT COMPLY WITH T HE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 285BA. IT WAS ONLY WHEN A SECOND NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 11 TH SEPT., 2009 THAT THE PETITIONER FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN AND EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY NOT AWARE OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 285BA, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE PETITIONER TO TAKE SUCH DEFENCE ONCE THE 13 DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) ON 17 TH DEC., 2008. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ANY REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIXT Y DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE FIRST NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE HONBLE COURT HELD T HAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENTERTAIN ANY BONA FIDE BELIEF OR TO PL EAD IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISIOSN OF SECTION 285BA FROM THE DATE OF SERVIC E OF FIRST NOTICE U/S 285BA(5). A DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER H AS TO BE VIEWED AS A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 273B IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY IS DELETED FOR THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF SERVICE OF FIRST NOTICE U/S 285BA( 5) AND FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD, PENALTY IS LEVIABLE FROM THE DATE OF SERVIC E OF THE FIRST NOTICE. 12. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, MR. P.N.ARORA , ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER BEEN SERVED NOTICE FOR FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN AN D WHEN THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA). 14 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA , ADVOCATE FINALLY ARGUED THAT THE REGISTRARS ARE NOT MUCH EDUCATED AN D THEREFORE, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF INCOME TAX RULES AND IT WAS F OR THE FIRST TIME THEY HAD TO FACE INCOME TAX LAW, WHICH WAS NOT IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND PRAYED TO CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UPON AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, SH.R.L.CHHANALIA, ADDL. CIT (DR) ARGUED AT THE OUTSET THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE. HE A LSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) AND AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN IN THE PRESENT CASES THAT THERE IS AN Y BONA FIDE BELIEF OR THERE IS AN REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON SERVICE OF THE NOTI CE U/S 285BA(5) OF THE ACT. ONCE THE THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE CASES HAVING BEEN SERVED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL CANNOT PLEA D THAT NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON HIM. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 AT PB-4 IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH MEANS THAT IT HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER NOTICES WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON HI M AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD WITH REFERENCE TO NOTICES DATED 0 4.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 & 12.03.2010 WHE THER THEY WERE NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REMAND REPORT ALSO , DIT(CIB) HAS 15 CONFIRMED HAVING ISSUED NOTICE IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 19.11.2012 AND NECESSARY RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE CONFRONTED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. MR. R.L. CHHAN ALIA, LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT EXCUSE WHICH I S A SETTLED LAW. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO MANDATE TO ISSUE/SERVE ANY NOTICE WITH REGARD TO ANY AMENDMENT OR INTRODUCTION OF ANY PROVISION OR LAW IN THE STAT UTE BOOK TO INFORM EACH AND EVERY ASSESSEE OF THE COUNTRY. EVEN IF THE DIT( CIB) HAS ISSUED NOTICES TIME AND GAIN WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IS A DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE LAW CONSCIOUSLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. NO BONAF IDE BELIEF HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORANT OF LAW I.E. ABOUT SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE INCOME TAX AU THORITY HAS NOT SERVED ANY NOTICES ON THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (IN SHORT AIR ) AND NO PENALTY SHOULD BE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS RE GARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS I NTRODUCED BY THE 16 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 TH E FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004, WHERE ANY ASSESSEE WHO ENTERS INTO ANY FI NANCIAL TRANSACTION, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, SHALL FU RNISH, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IN SU CH FORM AND MANNER, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN RESPECT OF SUCH FINANCIAL TRAN SACTION ENTERED INTO BY HIM DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. RULE 114A TO 114E PRE SCRIBES SUCH RETURN TO BE FURNISHED IN FORM NO.61A AND SHALL BE VERIFIED I N THE MANNER INDICATED THEREIN. AT ITEM NO.6 OF THE SAID RULE, RETURN SHA LL BE FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR I N WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. SECTION 285B A(5) IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: SECTION 285BA(5) WHERE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNU AL INFORMATION RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORI TY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUC H RETURN WITHIN A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF S ERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE SHALL FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE.] 15.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TH E SHELTER OF SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOV E THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ARE UNDER A MANDATE TO SERVE THE NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE IN CASE 17 ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IS NOT FILED FOR YEARS TO GETHER AFTER INSERTION OF THE SECTION BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4 .2004 INITIALLY AND THEREAFTER BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2 005 MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. WHEREAS THIS IS NOT A CASE, THE WORDS USED BY THE STATUTE IN SECTION 285BA(5) GIVES OPTION FOR THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITY TO SERVE NOTICE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE SERVED UPON. THE WORD MAY USED IN SECTION 285BA(5) CLEARLY INDICATES THE OPTION FOR THE INCO ME TAX AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE SUCH NOTICE. THEREFORE, INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE SAME. THE COURTS CANNOT ADD OR AMEND AND BY CONSTRUCTION CANNOT MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ACT. IT IS CONTRARY TO ALL RULE S OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE PROVISION AS IT STANDS IS MEANINGLESS OR HAVING A D OUBTFUL MEANING. WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USURP LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION DISGUI SE OF INTERPRETATION. THE COURTS ARE MEANT TO INTERPRET LAW, CANNOT LEGISLATE IT. OUR VIEWS FIND SUPPORTS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND O THERS REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 277. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) IS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE INC OME TAX AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ARE REJECTED TO THIS EXTENT. 18 15.2. AS REGARDS THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 ISSUED BY CIT (CIB), CHANDIGARH TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SURPRISING THAT H OW THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. REAS ONABLE PRESUMPTION IS MADE THAT THIS NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE DATED 20.11.2006 AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. AS PER REMAND REP ORT, 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 WI TH, 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 SERVE D 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 ASSESS EE. 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 19 CANNOT PROVE THAT THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 AND OTHER SIX NOTICES AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED AND SER VED 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 ASSESSEE EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHEN ALL NOTICES WERE CONFRONTED . THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW ON SERVICE OF NOTICE CANNOT BE MADE A PPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 15.4. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN FULL COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID DE CISION AND HAS DIRECTED THE CIT(CIB) TO RECOMPUTE THE DEFAULT W.E.F. 01.12. 2006 INSTEAD OF 31.08.2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THER EAFTER IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DEFAULT BEING THE F IRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED ON 20.11.2006 IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE. 15.5. AS REGARDS THE REASONABLE CAUSE, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE IN THE CASE OF PATAN N AGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), DECIDED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAY REFER THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE, AS PER OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE AND ALS O AS PER DECISION OF THE 20 HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATTAN NAG RIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRAAND THE SUB REGISTRAR CANNOT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS OF NO EXCUSE, AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD . VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS REPORTED IN (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC). 15.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, ALL THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMI SSED. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWAL A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PR ESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.137(ASR)/2013 AND THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN IT ANO.137(ASR)/2013 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE SUB R EGISTRAR, MUKTSAR IN ITA NOS. 130 TO 134(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2005-06 TO 2009- 21 10. IN THIS CASE, THE DETAILS OF DUE DATE OF FILING OF ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN AND DATE OF ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN FILED AND TH E DELAY IN FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION IS AS UNDER: S.NO. FINANCIAL YEAR DUE DATE FOR FILING AIR FILED ON DELAY (IN DAYS) 1. 2004-05 30.11.2005 08.03.2006 97 DAYS 2. 2005-06 31.08.2005 03.11.2010 1524 DAYS 3. 2006-07 31.08.2007 03.11.2010 1159 DAYS 4. 2007-08 31.08.2008 03.11.2010 794 DAYS 5. 2008-09 31.08.2009 03.11.2009 429 DAYS IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(CIB), HAS ISSUED NOTICES ON 20.11.2006, 04.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 & 12 .03.2010, WHICH REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE TH E FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASES DECID ED BY US HEREINABOVE IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 EXCEPT THAT ONE DIFFERENT AND PERTINENT FACT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. RAT HER THE SAME IS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEES CASE I.E. SUB REGISTRAR, MUKTSAR THAT DUE DATE OF FILING THE AIR WAS 30.11.2005 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN ON 08.03.2006 WHICH RESUL TED IN DELAY OF 97 DAYS 22 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. FILING OF THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 ( FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05) ON 08.03.2006 AND THEREAFTE R FILING THE RETURN FOR THE A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 ON 03.11.2010 CLEARLY ESTA BLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AND THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 HEREINABOVE AND TH E FACTS BEING IDENTICAL AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, A LL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED.. 18. AS REGARDS OTHER APPEALS IN ITA NO. 135 & 136(A SR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, DODA, IN ITA NOS. 141 TO 143(ASR )/3013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR,, LAKHEWALI, IN ITA NOS. 144 TO 148(A SR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, MAUR MANDI, IN ITA NOS. 229 TO 232(A SR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, SANGAT, IN ITA NOS. 233 TO 237(ASR)/ 2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, LAMBI AND IN ITA NOS. 238 TO 241(ASR)/20 13 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, MALOUT, IN ITA NOS. 242 TO 246(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR TALWANDI AND IN ITA NO.247 & 248(ASR)/201 3 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, RAMPURA PHUL, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT A PPEALS HAVE BEEN ARGUED 23 BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA TO BE IDENTICAL AND ALSO THE LD. DR HAS ARGUED THAT THE FACTS BEING IDENTICA L AS IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA IN ITA NO.137 TO 140(ASR)2013 A ND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IN THE SAID APPEALS, WE FIND THAT THE FACT S IN THE SAID APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRA R BARIWALA AND MUKTSAR. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). OUR ORDER WILL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES BEFORE US IN ALL THE ASSESSEES FOR ALL THE YE ARS. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ALL THE YEARS ARE DISMI SSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 39 APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013, 130 TO 134(ASR)/2013, 135 & 136 ( ASR)/2013, 141 TO 143(ASR)/2013, 144 TO 148(ASR)/2013, 229 TO 232(ASR )/2013, 233 TO 237(ASR)/2013, 238 TO 241(ASR)2013, 242 TO 246(ASR) /2013 AND 247 & 248(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30TH MAY, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ALL THE ASSESSEES: 24 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.
