The Sub-Registrar, Vriddhachalam V. DIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2015/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4974 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, J. M. & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A. M. I.T.A. NO. 2009/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE, 48, SALEM MAIN RD, METTUR DAM, SALEM DIST. [TAN : CHES24528A] VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), (I/C), CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN I.T.A. NO. 2013/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 THE SUB-REGISTRAR, KOOTHANALLUR. [TAN : CHES09133F] VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,, CIB, CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN I.T.A. NO. 2015 /MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SUB-REGISTRAR, WEST MAIN ROAD, PENNADAM, VIRUDHACHALAM 606 105. [TAN : CHES27673C] VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHENNAI I.T.A. NO. 2016/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SUB-REGISTRAR, TVA COLONY, VEPPUR 606 304. [TAN : CHET11007D] VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. BASKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. ALL THESE FOUR ASSESSEES HAVE FILED APPEALS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT P ASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHENNAI FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA ITA ITA ITA NO NONO NOS SS S. .. . 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE ASSESSEES HAVE DIRECTLY FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST PENA LTY ORDERS PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIB, CHENNAI UNDER SECTION 271FA, WHERE AS THE SECTION 253 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 271FA. THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND SHOULD BE DISMISSE D IN LIMINE . IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. DR FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF I TAT CHENNAI D BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR VS. DIT(CIB) IN ITA NO. 1875/MDS/2 010 DATED 13.01.2011. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THE ASSESSEES NAMELY SUB-R EGISTRAR, MELAPALAYAM V. DIT(CIB) HAS ENCLOSED ANOTHER COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 2006/MDS/2010 DATED 12.04.2011, IN WHICH ORDER REFERRED TO BY THE LD. D R HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AND PLEADED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE IT AT ORDER. WHEREAS, OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEES SIMPLY STATED THAT SINCE IN THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN THEIR CASES, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO BE ITAT. THEREFORE, THEY HAVE FILED APPEAL DIRECTLY BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL AND SINCE THERE IS ALREADY ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THIS REGARD, T HEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 3. WE, AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, AND CONS IDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR VS. DIT(CIB) IN ITA NO. 1875/MDS/2010 DATED 13.01.2011 FOLLOWING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [CIB] AT CHENNAI U/S 271FA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATER IAL. IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION AVAILABLE IN THE I.T. AC T, 1961 ENABLING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DIRECT APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA BY THE DIRECTOR OF I NCOME-TAX [EXEMPTIONS]. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ITA ITA ITA ITA NO NONO NOS SS S. .. . 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 2009, 2013, 2015 & 2016/MDS/10 3 3. BUT WE APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUN SEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 271FA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961FA LLS UNDER CHAPTER XXI OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WHEREBY THE PENALTY ORDER IS APPEALA BLE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) U/S 246A(1)(Q) OF THE ACT. WHEN ENQUIRED, THE LD. COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED DIRECTL Y BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [CIB] HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE APPEAL LIES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT IT MAY BE OPE N FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS), SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL OPINION THAT HE MAY OBTAIN. 5. BUT THIS APPEAL WHICH IS FILED DIRECTLY BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. FURTHER THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ANO THER CASE, WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR OF HE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2009/MDS/2010 WITH THE PRAYER TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF ITAT ORDER. CONSI DERING THE DECISION ALREADY TAKEN BY TWO BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI, WE FOLLO W THE SAID ORDER AND DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 14. AS A RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSE SSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARI NG ON 02.06.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED : 02.06.2011. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.