The Sub Registrar, Thiruvalla V. Director of Incometax(Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Cochin

ITA 347/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96695 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M HAKIM SUB REGISTRAR
• Section: 246; 27; 6; 56

Judgement Text

ITA NO 347/COCH/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPEL L A TE T R IBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI B P JAIN , A M & GEORGE GEORGE.K , JM ITA NO . 347/COCH/2015 THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DIST PIN 689 101 VS DIRECTOR OF I COME TAX (I&CI) KOCHI ( APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. /TAN NO TVDS02056F ASSESSEE BY SH M HAKIM, SUB REGISTRAR REVENUE BY SH V R GOPAKUMAR, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 8 TH SEPT 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 TH SEPT 2015 OR D ER PER GOERGE GEORGE.K JM : THIS APPEA L FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.5.2015 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), KOCHI U/S 274 R.W.S 271 FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) IS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271 FA OF THE ACT. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), HAD LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT ON THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) ITA NO 347/COCH/2015 2 UNDER SE CTION 285BA OF THE I T ACT. THE AIR WHICH HAD TO BE FURNISHED U/S 285BA(1) OF THE I T ACT BY 31.8.2014 FOR AY 2013 - 14, WAS FILED ONLY ON 13.1.2015. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 135 DAYS IN FILING THE AIR. ACCORDING TO DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), THE RE WAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY; THEREFORE, HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 13,500/ - (RS.100 PER DAY OF DEFAULT). 3 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL U/S 25 3 OF THE ACT. THE SUB REGISTRAR WHO WAS PRESENT NOR THE LD DR WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA IS APPEALABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. W E NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE RAJSTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) VS RAVI VIJAY REPOR TED IN 252 CTR 288(RAJ) H AS HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE ACT IS APPEALABLE TO THE CIT(A) U/S 2 4 6 A (1)(Q) OF THE I T ACT 1961. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ( SUPRA ) READS AS UNDER: 6 T H E Q U E S T I O N BEF O R E T H I S C O UR T I S W H E TH E R A N O R D ER PA SSE D UN DER SEC TI O N 27 1 FA O R T HE 1 96 1 AC T B) TH E D I RECT O R IN C O M E TAX , W H O H O L D S T H E RA N K O F A CO M MISSIO N ER IN T H E I NC O M E TAX D E P A RTM E N T I S APPEA L A BL E UN D E R S EC T I O N 2 46 A( I )( Q ) OF T H E 1 96 1 ACT T O THE CO M M I SS I O N ER APPEAL S . SE CTI O N 246A( I ) ( Q ) OF T HE 1 96 1 A C T P R O V I D ES F O R A PP EA L S B E F O R E THE CO MM I SS I O N E R A PP EA L S AGA I N S T AN O R DE R O F PENAL T Y P ASSE D UND E R C H A PT E R 2 1 O F TH E 1 96 1 AC T . SEC TI O N 27 1 FA A DMITT E DL Y FA LL S W ITH I N C H A P T ER 2 1 O F T H E 1 96 1 AC T . TO M Y MIND TH E RE FO R E O N A PL A IN R E ADIN G O F TH E SA ID PR OV I S I O N A N A P PEA L A GA IN S T A N O RD E R PAS S E D B Y A N OFF I CE R O F TH E RANK O F C O RNRNI SS I O NER INC O ME T AX UNDER S E CTI O N 27 1 FA O F TH E 1 96 1 AC T I S MA IN TA INABL E B EFORE THE CO MMI SS I O N E R A PP EA L S . FR O M A MERE RE A DIN G OF TH E PR OV I S I O N F O R F ILIN G A PP E A L S AGA IN S T O RD E R S P ASSE D UND E R SEC TI O N 27 1 A ND 2 7 2A (A L SO UND ER C H AP T E R XX I ) O F T H E 1 961 A CT B E F O R E T H E I TAT , THIS CO UR T CANN O T O N A N A L OGY H O LD T H AT BECA U SE T H E S A I D O R DE R S P ASSE D B Y A N O FFIC E R OF TH E RA N K OF CO MMI S S I O N ER O F IN CO M E T A X ARE A PP EA L A BL E B EF O RE TH E I TA T ITA NO 347/COCH/2015 3 U ND E R SEC TI ON 2 5 3 OF TH E 1 96 1 A C T , A N O RDE R UN D ER SEC TI O N 27 1 FA O F TH E 1 96 1 AC T A L SO P A SSE D B Y A N OFF I CE R O F TH E R A NK OF CO MM I SS I ONER IN C O M E TAX SH O U LD A L SO B E A PP EA L A BL E B EF O R E TH E I TA T . IN M Y CO N S I DERED V I E W EVE N T H O U G H O RD ER S O F P E N A LT Y UN D E R SEC TI O N 2 7 1 A ND 2 7 2A OF TH E 19 6 1 AC T FA L L UND E R C H A PT E R X X I . A PP EA L S THE R E FR O M S T A ND EXC LUD E D B EF O R E TH E C O MMI SS I O N E R A PP EA L S UND E R TH E G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S O F SE C TI O N 246A( I )( Q ) B Y V IRTU E O F A S P E CI FI C P R O V I S I O N UN DE R SEC TI O N 253( 1 )(C) O R TH E 1 96 1 AC T . CO N SE QU E N TL Y. IN M Y V I EW A N O R DE R UND ER SEC TI O N 2 7 1 FA (C H A P T E R XX I ) O R TH E 1 96 1 I S PL A I NL Y A P PEA L A B L E UND ER SEC TI O N 24 6A ( I )( Q ) O F T H E 1 96 1 ACT A ND N O A M O UNT O F I NT E RP RE T A T I V E E X E R C I S E CAN D I S PL ACE L A V , A S E N AC T E D . F URTHER IT I S A N A D MI T T E D FAC T TH A T IN TH E C O U R S E O F TH E D E M A ND N O TI CE UN D E R SE C TI O N 1 56 OF TH E 1 9 6 1 AC T F O L L O W IN G T H E O R DE R OF P E N A LT Y U N D ER S E CT I O N 2 7 I FA O F T H E 1 961 AC T , T HE A SS E SSEE WAS IN FO RM E D T H A T TH E S A ID O RD E R WAS A PP EA L A B LE B E F O RE T H E J URI S DI C TI O N A L CO MMI SS I O N E R ( A P PEA L S) - - IN T H E IN S T A N T CAS E CO MMI SS I O N E R A PP EA L S III J A IPU R . 4 SIMILAR IS THE PROPOSITION LAID BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, PALI VS UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 433(RAJASTHAN). 5 SINCE THE ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271F A IS NOT APPEALABLE U/S 253 OF THE IT ACT TO THE TRIBUNAL AND IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA, IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPT 2015 . SD - SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) (GEORGE GEORGE .K ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 8 TH SEPT 2015 RAJ* ITA NO 347/COCH/2015 4 COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT , 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN