The Sub-Registrar, Royapuram, CHENNAI V. DIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2004/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5249 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO.2004/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE SUB-REGISTRAR ROYAPURAM 26, RAJAJI SALAI CHENNAI 600 001 VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB)I/C CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SRINIVAS O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 [F.Y 2008-09], IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRE CTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), CHENNAI, DATED 23.9.2010, PASSED U/S 271FA O F THE I.T.ACT. 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THA T ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT(AIR) AS REQUIRED UNDE R SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WHICH WAS 31.8.2009. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE ITA 2004/10 :- 2 -: NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THIS OFFICE SEEKING EXPLANATI ON FOR THE DELAY. THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON 21.9.2010 AND 22.9.2010, BUT ON THESE DATES, NO REP RESENTATION WAS MADE FROM THIS OFFICE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DIT(CIB) LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLA INED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FURNISHING AIR IN TIME AND ALSO FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 SUCH AIR WAS NOT FILED, HE LEVIED A PENALTY OF ` 100/- PER DAY OF DELAY AND CALCULATED THE SAME AT ` 38,700/- [387 DAYS X ` 100]. NOW, THE SUB-REGISTRAR HAS FILED THIS APPEAL . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. THE CASE OF THE R EVENUE IS THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY NOT FILING THE AIR IN TIME I.E BY 31.8.2009; AND THAT N O EXPLANATION IN THE FORM OF REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN CORRECTLY LEVIED. THE OTHER R EASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.DR IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DIRECTLY FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WILL NOT LIE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH TAKEN IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, KADAYANALLUR VS DIT(CIB ) IN I.T.A.NO. 1875/MDS/2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ORDER D ATED 13.1.2011, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE DIT(CIB) DOES NOT DIRECTLY LIE TO THE TRIBUNAL, BUT IT FIRS T LIES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ONLY SECOND APPEAL CAN BE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. ITA 2004/10 :- 3 -: 3. WE HAVE SEEN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 13.1.2011 AND ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS N OT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE THE FIRST APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER LIES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CANNOT TREA T THIS APPEAL AS MAINTAINABLE; BUT STILL IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE APP ELLANT TO FILE PROPER APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER OBTAINING LEGAL OPINION, IF IT SO ADVISED. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR ABOV E ORDER, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL WHICH IS FILED DIRECTLY BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL, BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.4. 2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12 TH APRIL, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR