The Manager, Gurdaspur V. The Director of Income-tax, Chandigarh

ITA 16/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68253 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law

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. 16,17,18 & 19(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 PAN :AAAATO711A THE MANAGER, VS, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE CHANDIGARH. BANK LIMITED, GURDASPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 28/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29/11/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 18.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AND LAW ON THE POINT. 2. THAT LD. DIT HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN LAW AND IN FACTS, IN LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.65,900/- FOR DEL AYED FILING OF AIR, BY WRONGLY REJECTING MOST BONAFIDE EXPLANAT ION OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN AS M UCH AS IT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SE CTION 285BA, WHICH PROVIDES FOR EXTENDED PERIOD TO FILE THE AIR . 4. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN AW SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE LIMITATION POINT. 5. THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN BEING INCORRECT, ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNREASONABLE BESIDES BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE URGED WITH THE PE RMISSION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE AMOUNT IS RS.38,500/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, RS.46,300/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 AND RS.9,800/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT IN THIS CASE OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON BEING THE MANAGER, THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD SADAR BAZAR, GURDASPUR, BEING ONE OF THE DEPOSITORY ENTERTAINING TRANSACTIONS FOR TAKING OR ACQUIRING ANY LOAN OR DE POSIT, AS ENVISAGED U/S 285BA(1) READ WITH 285BA(3)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 R.W. SR. NO. 1 & 2 OF TABLE E BELOW RULE 114E OF I.T. RULES, 1962 APPLICA BLE W.E.F. 1.12.2004 BY VIRTUE OF I.T.(TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT) RULES, 2005, IS REQUIRED TO THE FILE ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 3 AIR ON FORM NO.61A IN RESPECT OF THE FINANCIAL TRAN SACTIONS REPRESENTING ANNUAL CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING RS.10 LAKHS OR M ORE AND/OR ANNUAL PAYMENT AGGREGATING RS.2 LAKHS OR MORE IN RESPECT O F CREDIT CARD ISSUED/UTILIZED BY A PERSON, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE D ATE OF ITS FILING I.E. 31 ST AUGUST, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED AND IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO FURNISH THE AIR ON FORM NO.61A, PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271FA BY THE PRESCR IBED INCOME TAX AUTORITY VIZ DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGA RH AS LAID DOWN IN RULE 114E(3) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. AS PER RECORDS OF THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, VIZ DIT (CIB), CHANDIGARH, THAT ONLY AFT ER BEING CONFRONTED ABOUT THE NON-FILING THE REQUISITE AIR ON FORM NO. 61A, THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON VIZ THE MANAGER, THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO-OP ERATIVE BANK LTD; SADAR BAZAR, GURDASPUR HAS FURNISHED THE REQUISITE AIR RETURNS LATE, AS PER DETAILS GIVEN/INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. S.NO. FIN.YEAR DUE DT. FOR FILING AIR AIR FILED ON DELAY (IN DAYS) PENALTY U/S 271FA LEVIED (IN RS.) @ RS.100/- PER DAY OF DEFAULT FOR CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA(1) OF I.T.ACT,61 R/W RULE 114E OF IT RULES,62 1 2004-05 30.11.06 21.09.07 659 RS.65,900/- ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 4 2. 2005-06 31.8.06 21.09.07 385 RS.38,500/- 3. 2006-07 31.8.07 21.09.07 21 RS.NIL PROCEEDINGS DROPPED 4. 2007-08 31.08.09 08.12.09 463 RS.46300/- 5. 2008-09 31.8.09 08.12.09 98 RS.9,800/- THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWE D ARE DETAILED BELOW: S.NO. PARTICULARS I.E. NO. & DT. OF NOTICE DT OF HEARING STATUS MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER 1. 28.1.10 15.2.10 REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH 2. NO.4822 DT.28.2.10 2.3.10 REMAINED UNATTENDED TO 3. NO.5107 DT. 12.3.10 23.3.10 AR ATTENDED ON REQUE ST ADJ . TO 9.4.10 4. NO.1020 DT.9.4.10 20.4.10 AR ATTENDED ON REQUEST AGAIN ADJ. TO 3.5.10 5. 3.5.10 AR ATTENDED ON REQUEST AGAIN ADJ. TO 17.5.10 6 7.5.10 AR ATTENDED ON REQUEST AGAIN ADJ. TO 1.6.10 7 1.6.10 AR ATTENDED ON REQUEST AGAIN ADJ. TO 7.6.10 8 7.6.10 FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, STANDS DULY INCORPORATED AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF P. ORDER . FOR SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS, CASE ADJ TO 22.6.10 9. 22.6.10 FILED REJOINDER DT.22.6.10 REQUESTING THAT FOR FY 06-07 THE DELAY OF ONLY 21 DAYS BEING TOO SHORT, BE CONDONED & PENALTY BE DROPPED, 2 ND REPLY WAS ALSO INCORPORATED AT ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 5 PGS. 5 & 6 AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF BOTH THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DIT (CIB), CHANDIGARH, HE PROCEEDED TO LEVY PEN ALTY U/S 271FA FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 04.05, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09, THEREBY DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FY 06-07 THEREBY CONSIDERING THE AR S ARGUMENTS QUITE REASONABLE AS FAR AS FY 06-07 IS CONCERNED. AS FOR THE REMAINING ASSTT. YEARS, THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS DID NOT FIND FAVO UR WITH THE DIT (CIB) CHANDIGARH WITH THE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN FILING AIR LATE YEAR AFTER YEAR RIGHT FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 TO 200 8-09 AND FOR THESE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. J.S. BHASI N, ADVOCATE, AT THE OUTSET ARGUED THAT THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE BE NCH ON THE ISSUE ARE THAT OF THE SUB REGISTRARS WHEREAS THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT OF CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRIT SAR BENCH IN ITA NOS. 261 TO 265(ASR)/2013 AND ITA NOS. 266 TO 270(ASR)/2 013 OF SUB REGISTRAR, MAMDOT AND SUB REGISTRAR, FEROZEPUR VS. DIT (CIB, C HANDIGARH DATED 27.06.2013 AND OTHER DECISIONS ON IDENTICAL FACTS A RE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 6 REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER BEEN SERVED TH E NOTICE U/S 285BA(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THERE IS NO TIME PRESC RIBED FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 285BA(1) OF THE ACT THE RETURNS HAVE BEE N FILED VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT RECEIVING ANY NOTICE THOUGH FILED LATE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT LEGISLATORS HAVE MADE AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 271FA AND ACCORDI NGLY HAS PRESCRIBED THE PERIOD AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PENALTY HAS TO BE LEVIED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. J.S. BHASIN, ADVOCATE , THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH AS ME NTIONED HEREINABOVE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMR ITSAR BENCH, MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AND FURTHER ARGUED IT IS A COVERED CA SE HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS AS IN THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS SUB REGISTRARS, MENTION ED HEREINABOVE. 7. WE HAVE HEAD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE, IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE, RATHER IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE TO FILE THE RETURN AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TAKE SHELTER AND COULD NOT WAIT FOR THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCO ME AND ACCORDINGLY ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 7 ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MANDATORY DELAYED RETURN FILED SHOULD BE TREATED AS FILED IN TIME AND NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. THE FURNISHING OF AIR HAS BEEN PRESCRIBE D U/S 285BA(1) READ WITH SECTION 285BA(2) AND THEREFORE, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS FOR FURNISHING AIR W.R.T. TIME ARE PRESCRIBED IN SUCH FORM OR MANN ER READ WITH RULES 114E AND FORM NO.61A. 7.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ARGUED WITH REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT MADE U/S 271FA WHICH, IN FACT, IS W.E.F. 01.04.2014 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID AMEND ED SECTION W.E.F. 1.4.2014, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN CASE NO NOTICE IS S ERVED U/S 285BA(1) BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY THEN A PENALTY OF A SUM OF RS. 100/- FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH SUCH FAILURE CONTINUES, SHALL BE PAI D BY THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE WHEREAS IF NOTICE U/S 285BA(5) IS ISSUED THEN PENAL TY SHALL BE A SUM OF RS.500/- FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH FAILURE CONTINU ES, BEGINNING FROM THE DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE DAY ON WHICH THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN EXPIRES. THIS AMEN DMENT IS TWO FOLDS AND THE LD. COUNSEL CAN NOT TAKE SHELTER OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH EXISTING PROVISIONS APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR WHERE THE ACT IS QU ITE CLEAR THAT IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RE TURN, AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 285BA(1) OF THE ACT, FAILS TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 8 PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION, THE INCOME-TAX A UTHORITY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SAID SUB-SECTION MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SH ALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF RS.100/- FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHI CH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. J.S.BHASIN, ADVOCATE, CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE, WHO TRIED TO DI STINGUISH OUR EARLIER DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRARS, MAMDOT AND FEROZEPUR (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SUB REGIS TRARS MAMDOT AND FEROZEPUR (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. J.K. GUPTA THOUGH THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED B Y THIS BENCH IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.201 3 AND THEREFORE, OUR ORDERS THEREIN SHALL APPLY IN THESE APPEALS WHEN THE FACT S IN THOSE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US. AS REGARDS T HE EXCEPTION IN THESE APPEALS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR REGISTRATION IN ITA NOS. 261 & 263(ASR)/2013 AND THEREFORE, ASS ESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE THE AIR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THIS REGARD, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT PLACED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND ALSO EVEN BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OF REGISTRATION IN THE SA ID YEARS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. AS REGARDS TH E CASES WHICH ARE NOMINAL NUMBER OF REGISTRATION EXCEEDING RS.30 LACS, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE REASONED FINDING THAT NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN ON THE ISSUE. MOREOVER, IT IS ONLY ON FILING OF AIR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AFTER EXAMINA TION OF THE RETURN AND FACTS OF THE CASE WILL COME TO KNOW WHETHER THE FACTS DEC LARED ARE CORRECT OR NOT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO US, FILING OF AIR UNDER THE ACT I.E. UNDER SECTION 285BA(1) IS MANDATORY AND THERE IS NO EXCEPT ION TO THE SAME. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) REFERR ED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HELP THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE OTHER FACTS, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N APPEALS IN ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 9 ITA NO.137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 & OTHERS (SUPRA) AND OUR ORDER THEREIN SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE REPRODUCE PARA 15 & 16 OF OUR ORDER DATED 30.05.20 13 IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AS UNDER: 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF TH E LD. COUNSEL 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 AUTHORITY HAS NOT SERVED ANY NOTICES ON THE ASSESS EE AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ANNUAL I NFORMATION RETURN (IN SHORT AIR) AND NO PENALTY SHOULD BE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ON PE RUSAL OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINA NCE (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) AC T, 2004. PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION, SECTION 285BA WAS INSERTED BY THE F INANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004, WHERE ANY ASSESSEE WHO ENTERS INT O ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, SHALL FURNISH, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AN ANNUAL INF ORMATION RETURN IN SUCH FORM AND MANNER, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN RESP ECT OF SUCH FINANCIAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY HIM DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. RULE 114A TO 114E PRESCRIBES SUCH RETURN TO BE FU RNISHED IN FORM NO.61A AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE MANNER INDICAT ED THEREIN. AT ITEM NO.6 OF THE SAID RULE, RETURN SHALL BE FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR I N WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. SECTION 285 BA(5) IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: SECTION 285BA(5) WHERE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANN UAL INFORMATION RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBED I NCOME-TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQ UIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIOD NOT EXCEE DING SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE S HALL FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE.] ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 10 15.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN T HE SHELTER OF SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED H EREINABOVE THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ARE UNDER A MANDATE T O SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IS NOT FILED FOR YEARS TOGETHER AFTER INSERTION OF THE SEC TION 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.1.4.2005 MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. WHEREAS THIS IS NOT A CASE, THE WORDS USED BY THE STATUTE IN SECTION 285BA(5) GIVES OPTION FOR THE I NCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE NOTICE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE S ERVED UPON. THE WORD MAY USED IN SECTION 285BA(5) CLEARLY IN DICATES THE OPTION FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE SUCH NOTICE. THER EFORE, 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 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE PROVISION AS IT ST ANDS IS MEANINGLESS OR HAVING A DOUBTFUL MEANING. WE ARE NO T ENTITLED TO USURP LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION DISGUISE OF INTERPRE TATION. THE COURTS ARE MEANT TO INTERPRET LAW, CANNOT LEGISLAT E IT. OUR VIEWS FIND SUPPORTS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDR A TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 27 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) IS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITY. THEREFORE, ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ARE REJECTED TO THIS EXTENT. 15.2. AS REGARDS THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 ISSUE D BY CIT (CIB), CHANDIGARH TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SURPRISIN G THAT HOW THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSE SSEE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. REASONABLE PRESUMPTION IS MADE TH AT THIS NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE 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 NOT ICES 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 S EVEN ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 11 NOTICES REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH, AT THE LAST KN OWN ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AS UNDER: SUB REGISTRAR BARIWALA MUKTSAR 15.3. PENALTY ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 HAS BEEN SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESS EE 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 SERVE D UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 09.01.2013 AT THE SAME ADDRESS HAS ALS O NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 HAVING MENTIONED WRONG DIS TRICT IS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK CANNOT PROVE THAT THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 AND OTHER SIX NOTICES AS MENTIONED HER EINABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE IS REJE CTED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 285BA(5) HAS BEEN ISSUED/SERVED UPON TH E ASSESSEE EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHEN ALL NOTICES WERE CO NFRONTED. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW ON SERVI CE OF NOTICE CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 15.4. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD . VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN FUL L COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID DECISION 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 THEREAFTER IN THE FOLL OWING YEARS HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DEFAULT BEING THE FIRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED ON 20.11.2006 IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREI NABOVE. 15.5. AS REGARDS THE REASONABLE CAUSE, AS MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTO R OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), DECIDED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAY REFER THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 12 EXCUSE, AS PER OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE AND ALSO A S PER DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PA TTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRAAND THE SUB REGISTRAR CANN OT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IGNOR ANCE OF LAW IS OF NO EXCUSE, AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT 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 G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 A RE DISMISSED. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ASSESSEE S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.137(ASR)/2013 AN D THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.137(ASR)/2013 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS AND ACCORD INGLY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE AND OUR DECI SION IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS (SUPRA) REPROD UCED HEREINABOVE, SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT AP PEALS AND ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 261 TO 265(ASR)/2013 AND 266 TO 270(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 13 WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISM ISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITA NOS. 16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH NOVEMBER., 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR. ITA NO.16 TO 19(ASR)/2013 14