The Sub Registrar, Pondicherry V. DIT, CHENNAI

ITA 341/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64545 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.341/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE SUB REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OULGARET, NO.1 T&C PLANNING COMPLEX JAWAHAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD JAWAHAR NAGAR PUDUCHERRY 605 005 [TAN CHES24419D] VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .11.2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), CHENNAI, DATED 8.12.2011, PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. I.T.A.NO. 341/12 :- 2 -: 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE DIT(I&CI) THAT S UB-REGISTRARS OFFICE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN(AIR ) AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT F OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WHICH WAS 31.8.2 010. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 13.6.2011 WAS ISSUED TO THIS OFFICE SEEKING EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY. THE SUB-REGISTRARS OF FICE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON 29.9.2011 BUT ON THIS DAT E, NO REPRESENTATION WAS MADE FROM THIS OFFICE. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE DIT(I&CI) LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FURNISHING AIR IN TIME, HE LEVIED A PENALTY OF ` 100/- PER DAY OF DELAY AND CALCULATED THE SAME AT ` 46,400/- [464 DAYS X ` 100]. NOW, THE SUB-REGISTRAR HAS FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THE P RESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED I N VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, METT UR DAM, SALEM DISTRICT & OTHERS VS DIT(CIB) IN I.T.A.NO. 2009/MDS /2010 ETC., ORDER DATED 02.6.2011, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED O N RECORD, THAT APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE DIT(CIB) CA N BE FILED BEFORE I.T.A.NO. 341/12 :- 3 -: THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 246A(1)(Q) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT MAINTAINAB LE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT TH E TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 20 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR