Sub Registrar, Jind V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 179/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1344 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.177 TO 180 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10) SUB REGISTRAR VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (C IB), SAFIDON, DISTT. JIND CHANDIGARH. PAN: RTKS03981F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. JAI SHREE SHARMA, DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE PRESENT FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), DATED 22.12.20 10 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10 AGAIN ST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. WHO POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR ITSELF. 3. ALL THE FOUR APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESS EE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 4. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE SAID PENALTY W AS LEVIED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(CIB), CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HE PRESENT APPEALS DIRECTLY BEFORE US. NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFOR E THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHAN DIGARH. 5. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, TEHSIL OFFICE, KHAMANO, FATEHGAR H SAHIB VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH IN I.T.A.NOS. 1184, 1185,1186 & 1189/CHD/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 200607 , 2008-09 AND 2007-08 WHERE VIDE ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, WE HA VE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPELLANT CAN FILE AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTLY WITHOUT FILING OF APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS CONNECTION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT NOW THE CBDT HA S CLARIFIED IN F.NO.279/M-31/2010-SO(ITJ) ON THIS POI NT. HE ALSO FILED ON RECORD A COPY OF PAGE NO. 5 & 6 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION. WE FIND THAT IN THE ABOVE NOTIF ICATION, THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT U/S 246A(1)(Q), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO DISP OSE OF ANY PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271FA AND THAT THERE IS N O LEGAL BAR ON CIT(APPEALS) PASSING AN APPEAL ORDER AGAINST PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT (CIB), WHO IS EQUIV ALENT TO THE RANK OF CIT(APPEALS). IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENT IONED IN THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THAT WHETHER CIT(APPEALS) AND DIT(CIB) ARE EQUIVALENT IN RANK OR NOT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CAN HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGAI NST AN ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(CIB). FURTHER IT IS CLARIF IED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT U/S 246A(1)(Q) OF INCOME TAX ACT, CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGA INST 3 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 SHOU LD HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) BEFORE FILING AN APPEAL DIRECTLY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW O F THIS POSITION, WE ARE DISMISSING ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FI LED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTI CAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING TH E ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FIL ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BEFORE FILING AN APPEAL DIRECTLY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD MARCH, 2011 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR.