The Surat District Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Surat V. The DIT ( I & CI), Ahmedabad

ITA 2288/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9820 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: MITESH MODI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2288/AHD/2015 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-2014 THE SURAT DISTRICT CO.OP. BANK LTD. POST BOX NO.3232, KANPITH SURAT 395 003. PAN : AAAAT 2985 Q VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) AHMEDABAD. %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MITESH MODI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SHIV SEWAK, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/01/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/01/2016 )*/ O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-1, SURAT DATED 14.5.2015 PASSED FOR THE A SSTT.YEAR 2013-2014. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,400/- IMP OSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT FOR THE F.Y.2012-13. IT FAILED TO SUBMIT SUCH RETURN. THI S RETURN WAS TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST, WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A DE LAY OF 104 DAYS ON 14.12.2013 THE LD.AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 10,4000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.2288/AHD/2015 2 SUCH DELAY. ON APPEAL, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ID AR REITER ATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AND PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE DIT(I&CI), AHMEDABAD. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISS ION OF THE APPELLANT MADE BEFORE DIT(I&CI) AHMEDABAD & ALSO TH E FINDING GIVEN BY THE DIT IN HIS ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER BECAUSE THE AIR RETURN FOR F.Y. 2011-12 W AS ALSO FILED LATE ON 25.02.2013 I.E. AFTER A DELAY OF 177 DAYS. IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICE FOR PENALTY, LAST YEAR ALSO SIMILAR EXCUSE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SYMPATHETICALLY CONSIDERED AND NO PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THIS YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SAME PRETEXT OF 'BANK EDP UPGRADATION PROCESS'. THIS IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE WH EN THIS TECHNICAL PROBLEM WAS ALREADY OVERCOME LAST TIME BECAUSE RETU RN FOR F.Y. 2011-12 WAS FILED ON 25.02.2013, THEN HOW COME THIS DIFFICULTY COME IN THE WAY OF FILING OF SUBSEQUENT AIR RETURN FOR F .Y. 2012-13. HENCE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS IS A LAME EXCUSE OF THE ASS ESSEE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A 'REASONABLE CAUSE' JUSTIFYING THE L ATE FILING OF AIR RETURN. CONSIDERING THIS, I AM OF CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271FA OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. HENCE, PENALTY OF RS.10,4 00/- IS HERBY SUSTAINED. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT BECAUSE EDP DEPARTMENT WAS UNDER UPGRADATION PROCESS, AND IT HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THE USING PAN OF THE BANK SOME UNKNOWN PERSON HAS FILLED UP THE DATA. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY COMMITTED THE DEFAULT IN SUBMITTING THE AIR IN FORMATION RETURN FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, RATHER FOR F.Y.2011-12 ALSO, IT CO ULD NOT FILE RETURN WITHIN THE TIME. THERE WAS DELAY OF 177 DAYS. AFTER COMM ITTING DEFAULT IN ITA NO.2288/AHD/2015 3 F.Y.2001-12, THE ASSESSEE, AT LEAST, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CAREFUL IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIO N AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE RETURN IN TIME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER