M/s. Regional Transport Office, V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1716/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9193 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 273B; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 1716 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 12 M/S. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NEAR SANGAM BRIDGE, PUNE 411001 TAN : PNER00457C ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTELLIGENCE), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NO N E REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 07 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 0 7 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13, PUNE DATED 15 - 09 - 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 12 CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 2 ITA NO . 1716/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATI NG FROM RECORDS ARE: THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE (RTO), PUNE (APPELLANT) IS ONE OF THE AGENCIES FROM WHERE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT COLLECTS INFORMATION REGARDING REGISTRATION OF HIGH - END VEHICLES. THE INTELLIGENCE WING OF THE DEPARTMENT COLLECTS INFORMATI ON U/S. 136 OF THE ACT FROM THIRD PARTIES AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1943 DATED 22 - 08 - 1997 IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION CODES ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME. A NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 08 - 07 - 2011 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB) - 2, PUNE TO FURNISH INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF REGISTRATION OF FOUR WHEELER S HAVING VALUE OF RS.5,00,000/ - AND ABOVE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11. SINCE, NO INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT, SECOND NOTICE DATED 08 - 07 - 2011 WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. DESPITE SERVICE OF SECOND NOTICE, NO INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE APPELLANT. THERE WERE SEVERAL ROUNDS OF PERSONAL MEETINGS AND REMINDERS BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND APPELLANT, HOWEVER, NO INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE DEP ARTMENT WAS FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE OF RTO, PUNE. CONSEQUENTLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29 - 11 - 2011 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(C) OF THE ACT FOR NON - FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 17 - 12 - 2011 GAVE REASONS FOR NO N - FURNISHING OF INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.29,100/ - U/S. 272 A (2)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 25 - 04 - 2012. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LEVYING PENA LTY, THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SIMILAR REASONS WERE FURNISHED BY THE RTO FOR NON - FILING OF RETURN/INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REJECTED THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF 3 ITA NO . 1716/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2011 - 12 PENALTY. NOW, THE RTO IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 272 A (2)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. T HE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DULY SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT , TODAY . HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED ON TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS O F WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT , MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE (DR). 4. SHRI ACHAL SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES W ERE GIVEN TO THE RTO, PUNE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE OFFICE O F RTO DESPITE REPEATED REMINDERS AND PERSONAL REQUEST MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILED INFORMATION AS SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE FORMAT IN WHICH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED WAS ALSO ANNEXED WITH S HOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ON SUBSEQUENT PERSONAL VISIT BY THE OFFICE OF DEPARTMENT TO THE OFFICE OF RTO THE FORMAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION BY MAKING THE EXCUSE OF SCARCITY OF STAFF . THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED DESPITE GRANTING OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES THE PENALTY HAS BEE N RIGHTLY IMPOSED U/S. 272A (2) (C) OF THE ACT. 4 ITA NO . 1716/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2011 - 12 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO T HE APPELLANT FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT FOR FURNISHING OF INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE OF RTO. FOR NON - SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION AS SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6), PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE I.E. 08 - 07 - 2011 TO THE DATE OF ORDER LEVYING PENALTY I.E. 24 - 04 - 2012 @ RS.100/ - PER DAY AGGREGATIN G TO RS.29,100/ - . 6. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT SHOW THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR NON - FILING OF RETURN / INFORMATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT IS SHORTAGE OF STAFF. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REASONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT IS AS UNDER : 9. THE REASON EXPLAINED TO THE DEPT. THAT ITS MAHARASHTRA GOVT. OFFICE, WHICH IS FLOODED WITH WORK OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES, ISSUING LICENSES, DAY TO WORK ON ABOVE REMAIN PENDING BECAUSE OF ACUTE SHORTAGE OF STAFF AND FACILITIES, AVAILABLE STAFF IS NOT QUALIFIED, NOT EFFICIENT MUCH LESS TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED. INFORMATION PARTICULARLY AS TO PAN NO. OF VEHICLE PURCHASERS OR DETAILS OF FORM 60/61, IS NOT FILLED IN THE SOFTWARE AVAILABLE WITH RTO OFFICE, TO GET IT FILLED IN, SEARCHING EACH BUNCH IS VERY TIME TAKING AND DIFFICULT JOB, INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON SOFTWARE PROGRAM OF RTO OFFICE AND ASKED FOR IN 33 COLUMN STATEMENT IS VERY DIFFERENT AND ELABORATE. 10. REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR THE FIRST TIME INSTRUCTED OFFICES BY CIRCULAR LETTER DATED MARCH 2011 FOR FILING PAN ETC. IN THE SOFTWARE. STAFF WAS NOT AWARE AND ACCUSTOM TILL THEN. COMPILING INFORMATION IN 33 COLUMNS FROM THE PAPERS FILED AT RTO I N EARLIER YEAR, TRACING THE PAPERS AS OFFICES ARE 5 ITA NO . 1716/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2011 - 12 UNORGANIZED IS DIFFICULT AND IMPOSSIBLE JOB. CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE COURSE ADDL. CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEVIED PENALTY. BEFORE C IT(A), OUR OFFICE STAFF WAS DEPUTED, BUT WAS NOT ENTERTAINED. 11 . RTO, BEING STATE GOVT. OFFICE WAS NOT CONVERSANT WITH INCOME TAX TECHNICALITIES AND PROVISIONS AND HAS NO SUPPORT OF ADVISERS OR CONSULTANTS. 12. I AM TOLD THAT SUCH PENALTIES LEVIED ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY OFFICER OF GOVT. DEPT. FROM HIS POCKET AND NOT FRO M OFFICE MONEY, WHICH HAS SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS, THAT TO BECAUSE OF FAULT OF THE WORKING UNDER HIM. 13. EVEN OUTSOURCING THE WORK CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT PERMISSIONS & SANCTIONS. AND IS LENGTHY PROCEDURE PROPOSALS ARE NOT NORMALLY ENTERTAINED. 7 . THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR NON - FILING OF INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE. THE REASONS FOR NON - FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BY THE APPELLANT AND NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) ARE ACCEPTED UNDER THE SHELTER OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 272A(2)(C) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 8. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER , WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IN FUTURE THE OFFICE OF RTO WOULD MAKE SINCERE EFFORTS IN COMPILING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND PROVIDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN FORM PRESCRIBED . THE STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE TO WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FOR EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND FOR TIGHTENING THE NOOSE AROUND TAX EVADERS. THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ARE LEAPING TOWARDS DIGITIZATION OF RECORDS. WE EXPECT THAT IN TIMES TO COME THE OFFICE OF RTO BY TAKING THE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND 6 ITA NO . 1716/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2011 - 12 DIGITIZATION WOULD PROVIDE THE REQU ISITE INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT AND INSUFFICIENCY OF STAFF WOULD NOT BECOME A STUMBLING BLOCK IN COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 9. T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 14 TH JULY, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 13 , PUNE 4. THE DGIT (INV.), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE