The Sub Registrar/ Jt. Sub Registrar, Kurukshetra V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 378/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68551 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G SAGAR AHUJA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 133A; 133(6); 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 378 & 379/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX( CIB), PEHOWA, SCO 98-100, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA. SECTOR 17-C, PAN NO.RTKS-06524A CHANDIGARH. & ITA NOS. 863 TO 865/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX( CIB), ISMAILABAD, SCO 98-100, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA. SECTOR 17-C, PAN NO.RTKJ-02972E CHANDIGARH. & ITA NOS. 380 & 381/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX( CIB), ISMAILABAD,, SCO 98-100, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA. SECTOR 17-C, PAN NO.RTKS-06524A CHANDIGARH. & ITA NOS. 382 & 383/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX( CIB), THANESAR, SCO 98-100, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA. SECTOR 17-C, PAN NO.RTKS04239E CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.SAGAR AHUJA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT A SSESSEES AGAINST 2 DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEARS VARYING BETWEEN 2006-07 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT FOR SHORT ). ALL THESE APPEALS RELATING TO DIFFERENT SUB REGISTR ARS ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NOS. 378 & 379/CHD/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB) CHANDIGARH WHEREIN HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 77,500/- U/S 271 FA. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED FOR NOT CONSID ERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PATAN NAG RIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (CIB) GUJ. HIGH COURT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPLYING THE NOT ICES OF THE DEPARTMENT TO A.O. CIB KARNAL OFFICE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORIN G THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT I) BONAFIDE BELIEF OF FILING THE RETU RN II) PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA WERE NEW III) HAVING NO TAN NUMBER IV) SDO CIVIL PEHOWA BEING THE IN-CHARGE OF SUB DIVISION & HAVING TAN NO. COMPETENT FOR FILING REQU IRED INFORMATION. 5. THAT NO REVENUE LOSS FOR NOT FILING INFORMATION LATE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. IN ITA NOS. 863 TO 865/CHD/2012, THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN LAW & FACT, (LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW & FACT IN CONFIRMING) ON IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271 FA AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,33,800/-. 2. THAT THE A.O. DID NOT CONSIDER THE ANNUAL INFORMATI ON FILED MANUALLY ALONG-WITH C.D WITHIN-TIME BY THE APPELLAN T & LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED FOR NOT CONSIDERI NG THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (CIB) GUJ. HIGH COURT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPLYING THE NOTICES OF THE DEPART MENT TO A.O. CIB KARNAL OFFICE 3 4. IN ITA NOS. 380 & 381/CHD/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DIT (CIB) CHANDIGARH WHEREIN HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 49,500 /- U/S 271 FA. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED FOR NOT CONSID ERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (CIB) GUJ. HIGH COURT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPLYING THE NOTICES OF THE DEPART MENT TO A.O. CIB KARNA/ OFFICE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORIN G THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT I) BONAFIDE BELIEF OF FILING THE RETURN II) PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA WERE NEW III) HAVING NO TAN NUMBER IV) SDO CIVIL PE HOWA BEING THE IN- CHARGE OF SUB DIVISION & HAVING TAN NO. COMPETENT F OR FILING REQUIRED INFORMATION. 5. THAT NO REVENUE LOSS FOR NOT FILING INFORMATION LATE BY THE APPELLANT. 5. IN ITA NOS. 382 & 383/CHD/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DIT(CIB) CHANDIGARH WHEREIN HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 85,300/- U/S 271 FA. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED FOR NOT CONSID ERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PATAN NAG RIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (CIB) GUJ. HIGH COURT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPLYING THE NOTICES OF THE DEPART MENT TO A.O. CIB KARNAL OFFICE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORIN G THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT I) BONAFIDE BELIEF OF FILING THE RETURN II) PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA WERE NEW III) HAVING NO TAN NUMBER IV) SDO CIVIL PEHOWA BEING THE IN-CHARGE OF SUB DIVISION & HAVING TAN NO. COMPETENT FOR FILING REQU IRED INFORMATION. 5. THAT NO REVENUE LOSS FOR NOT FILING INFORMATION LATE BY THE APPELLANT. 6. SHRI G.SAGAR AHUJA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PEHOWA AND SUB REGISTRAR, ISMAILABAD. IT WAS BROUG HT TO HIS NOTICE THAT TWO APPEALS OF SUB REGISTRAR, THANESAR WERE AL SO FIXED FOR HEARING AND NOTICE HAD WRONGLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE R EGISTRY IN THE NAME OF SUB REGISTRAR, PEHOWA. THE LD. COUNSEL SHR I G.SAGAR AHUJA STATED THAT HE ALSO REPRESENTS SUB REGISTRAR, THANE SAR. THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BY ERROR, COMMON NOTICE IN IT A NOS. 378 TO 4 383/CHD/2012 WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SUB REGISTR AR, PEHOWA, THOUGH ITA NOS. 378 & 379/CHD/2012 RELATE TO SUB RE GISTRAR, PEHOWA, ITA NOS. 380 & 381/CHD/2012 RELATE TO SUB R EGISTRAR, ISMAILABAD AND ITA NOS. 382 & 383/CHD/2012 RELATE T O SUB REGISTRAR, THANESAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS REPRESE NTING ALL DIFFERENT SUB REGISTRARS AND POWER OF ATTORNEYS IN ALL CASES IN HIS FAVOUR WERE FILED. DIFFERENT POWER OF ATTORNEYS WERE FOUND TO BE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE ALLOWED HIM TO ARGUE ALL THE APPEALS. 7. ALL THE APPEALS INVOLVING SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AS ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS W AS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, HOWEVER REFERENCE IS BEING M ADE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 378/CHD/2012 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 8. AS PER THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIT (CIB ), THE SUB REGISTRAR/S IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS HAD NOT FURNISHED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSM ENT YEARS. THE DIT (CIB) ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSEE/S BEFORE US TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271FA BE NOT IMPOSED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SENT THE INFORMATIO N IN CD VIDE OFFICE LETTER DATED 15.10.2010 BUT NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR NOT FILING THE AIR. FURTHER REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTING THAT HE HAD SENT THE INFORM ATION ON VARIOUS DATES. THE DIT (CIB) NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION SE NT BY THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT BY THE ITO (CIB) KARNAL IN RESPECT OF THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF RS. 5 LACS TO RS. 30 LACS O NLY. THE FILER WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE PROOF OF FILING THE AIRS FOR T HE CONCERNED FINANCIAL YEARS AND ALSO THE REASONS FOR LATE FILIN G OF THE AIRS. IN 5 RESPONSE, THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, PEHOWA APPEARED BEFORE THE DIT (CIB) AND FURNISHED PROOF REGARDING FILING OF AIRS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 WHICH WAS FILED ON 01.01.2011 BU T NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR DELAY IN LATE F ILING THE AIRS. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WERE DROPPED AS THE AIR WAS FILED ON 25.11.2005 I.E. IN TIME. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 THE INFORMATION WAS FILED BELATEDLY AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED @ RS. 100/- PER DAY OF DEFAULT. 9. THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PARAS 1.06 TO 1.09 OBSERVE D AS UNDER : 1.06 THE FIRST PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT FILING OF AIRS WAS RELATIVELY A NEW PROVISION BEING INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2 003, FOR FILING THE AIR WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2004 ONWARDS. THE PLEA OF TH E APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED AND IT IS NOTED THAT THE DIT(CIB) IN THE PENALTY ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE AD VISORY LETTERS ISSUED FROM HIS OFFICE, THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS ISSUED ON 2 1.11.2006. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE DELAY IN FILING THE AIR UP TO 21.11.2006 IS CONDONED. 1.7 THE APPELLANT IS PARA 2 & 3 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS TOOK THE PLEA THAT HE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS DUTIES OF FILING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR, THOUGH THE SAME WAS U/S!33A OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED. A T THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE REQUISITE INFORMAT ION/AIR WAS FILED. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF NOTED THAT THE INFOR MATION FILED WAS CALLED FOR U/S 133A OF THE ACT. IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECI ATE THAT HOW THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR AND FURNISHED U/S!33A OF THE ACT, CAN BE SAID TO BE FILED U/S285BA(L) OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, THE DIT(CIB) C ONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT AND ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF FILING THE AIR S OF THE F.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 WITH THE ITO (GIB) KARNAL/CIT GIB, CHANDIG ARH ON DIFFERENT DATES WHICH IS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE PENALT Y ORDER AND CONSIDERED THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN UP TO THOSE DATES ON LY AND NO PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR THE F.Y. 2004-05. 1.8 THE APPELLANT FURTHER TOOK THE PLEA THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY TAN OR PAN NUMBERS AND WITHOUT THAT, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE THE SAID INFORMATION. IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROBL EM AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PROBLEM IN TAKING THE TAN/PAN NO. BY FULFILLING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE. THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE CONT ACTED THE DEPARTMENT AT LEAST AFTER GETTING THE NOTICE FROM THE DIT(CIB) TO ASCERTAIN THE DETAILS IN THIS REGARD AND SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE NECESSARY ACTION. 1.9 THE APPELLANT FINALLY TOOK THE PLEA THAT BY NOT FIL ING THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO REVENUE AND PLACED RELIANCE ON SOME DECISIONS. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED. IT IS NOTED THAT MOST OF THE DEFAULT UN DER THE INCOME TAX ACT, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING TDS/TCS OR AIR CAN BE SAID TO BE OF TECHNICAL NATURE 6 AND THIS WAY, CAN ONE SAY THE PENALTY FOR THESE DEF AULTS CAN NEVER BE LEVIED. 10. THE CIT(APPEALS), IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HELD THE ASSESSEE NOT TO HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY REASONABLE CAUSE OF DELA Y IN FILING THE AIR AND THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF T HE ACT WAS UPHELD IN ALL THE YEARS EXCEPT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07, WHERE IT WAS DELETED. 11. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AN D HENCE THE DELAY. FURTHER, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FROM THE A UTHORITIES, THE INFORMATION WAS FILED MANUALLY ALONGWITH CD. THE N EXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT NO TAN NUMBER WAS ALLOTTED TO T HE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE DELAY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE L D. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NSDL WAS AVAILABLE IN DISTRICT KUR UKSHETRA AND THE MANUAL RETURNS WERE REPEATEDLY FILED. OUR ATTENTIO N WAS DRAWN TO THE VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS FILED BEFORE DIFFERENT PARTI ES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 TO 2006-07, EVIDENCE OF WHICH WAS FILE D IN THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME- TAX (CIB) [338 ITR 167 (GUJ)] AND ALSO ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. S TATE OF ORISSA [83 ITR 26(SC)]. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT TH AT THE NSDL WAS ESTABLISHED IN KURUKSHETRA IN 2009 AND THEREAFTER, THE AIR INFORMATION WAS UPLOADED ON THE SYSTEM. IT WAS FUR THER CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS , SAME FACTS ARE ARISING. 12. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CASE OF SUB 7 REGISTRAR, JAGADHARI VS DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 431 T O 434/CHD/2012, WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED EARLIER. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL D ECISION IN THE SUB REGISTRAR VS DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140/ASR/2 013 VIDE ORDER 30.05.2013. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN IT A NOS. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013, I T HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED AN OBL IGATION TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT BY THE PRESCRI BED PERSON FOR THE SPECIFIED TRANSACTION WITHIN STIPULA TED TIME. THE SUB REGISTRAR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 285BA OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMA TION REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AN D SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS.30 L ACS OR MORE. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE SAID AIR INFORMA TION IN FORM NO.61A IS 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTE RED OR RECORDED. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SPECIFIED INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE AC T. 24. COMING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF TH E ACT, THE SUB-SECTION (1) PROVIDES THE LIST OF PERSONS WH O ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN I N RESPECT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE REGISTE RED OR RECORDED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004. SUCH INFORMATION IS TO BE FURN ISHED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY I.E. THE DIRECT OR OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL INFORMATION BRANCH) OR THE AUTHORITY/AGENCY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT I.E. NSDL . THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIO N (1) TO SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) IS TO BE FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS REG ISTERED OR RECORDED, IN FORM NO.61A, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RU LE 114E OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. SUB-SECTION (3) DEFI NES SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, WHICH MAY BE PRESC RIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE BOARD HAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO PR ESCRIBE DIFFERENT VALUES FOR DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS IN RESP ECT OF DIFFERENT PERSONS, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF S AID TRANSACTION. UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) WHERE THE PRESC RIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY CONSIDERS THE ANNUAL INFORMATI ON 8 RETURN FURNISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) TO BE DEFECT IVE, THEN SUCH DEFECTS ARE TO BE INTIMATED TO THE PRESCRIBED PERSON AND AN OPPORTUNITY IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR RECTIFYING THE SAME WITHIN THE SPECIFIED/ EXTENDED PERIOD. IN CASE SAI D DEFECTS ARE NOT REMOVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED OR EXTENDED P ERIOD THEN SUCH RETURNS WOULD BE TREATED AS AN INVALID RE TURN AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AS IF THE PER SON HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN. U NDER SUB- SECTION (5) WHERE THE PRESCRIBED PERSON HAS NOT FUR NISHED ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIM E, THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS. 25. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE AC T, PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN THE EVENT OF THE PERSON RES PONSIBLE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. SECTION 271 FA OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: [ PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION R ETURN. 271FA. IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 285BA , FAILS TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION, THE INCOME-TAX A UTHORITY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SAID SUB-SECTION MAY DIRECT TH AT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF ONE H UNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTI NUES.] 26. READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT, IT TRANSPIR ES THAT WHERE THE PRESCRIBED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE AIR AND FAILS TO FURNISH THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THEN SUCH PERSON COULD BE HELD TO BE LIABLE TO LEVY OF P ENALTY EQUIVALENT TO RS.100/- FOR EVERY DAY OF DEFAULT. T HE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 73B OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS NOT TO BE IMPOSED, WHERE THE PERSON PROVES THAT THERE WAS REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE/DEFAULT. THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS ALSO COVERED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. IT THUS IMPLIES THAT I N EACH CASE OF DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT COMPULSORY AND THE SAME IS NOT IMPOSABLE IF THE PERSON SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 2 73B OF THE ACT. 27. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SU PRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER: SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION UPO N ANY PERSON, BEING AN ASSESSEE, WHO IS RESPONSIBL E FOR REGISTERING OR MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS CONTAINING A RECORD OF ANY SPECIFIE D FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME B EING 9 IN FORCE, TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, IN RESPECT OF SUCH SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WHI CH IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED BY HIM DURING ANY FINANCI AL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER THE APRIL 1, 2004, AND INFORMATION RELATING TO WHICH IS RELEVANT AND REQUI RED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOM E- TAX AUTHORITY OR SUCH OTHER AUTHORITY OR AGENCY AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. SUCH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. SUB-SECTION (5 ) OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS FROM THE D ATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE SHALL FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE. 28. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE PETITIONER HAD MADE OUT A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE PRESCRIBED AIR RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PER IOD OF LIMITATION, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 285BA OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THA T WHERE THE PERSON HAD NOT FURNISHED THE AIR RETURN UNDER S ECTION 285BA(1) OF THE ACT, SUB-SECTION (5) THEREOF LAYS D OWN THAT PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SAID RETURN WITHI N THE SPECIFIED PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS FROM THE DAT E OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE HON'BLE COURT CONCLUDE D BY HOLDING THAT UPON SUCH NOTICE BEING SERVED, THE PET ITIONER CAN NO LONGER PLEAD THAT IT WAS UNAWARE OF THE STAT UTORY PROVISIONS OR ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SAME. THE HON'BLE COURT THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PER IOD OF 60 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. THE HON'BLE CO URT OBSERVED THAT HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE THE PETITIONE R HAS NOT IMMEDIATELY TAKEN STEPS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF T HE FIRST NOTICE ON DECEMBER 17, 2008, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE MADE OUT BY THE PETITIONER IN RESP ECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR THERETO SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF PENA LTY TO BE IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER , WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 17, 2008, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT, ANY DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE VIEW ED AS A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND AS SUCH, IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO, THE PE TITIONER WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT IN THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KANUBH AI MULJIBHAI PATEL [2008] 306 ITR 179 (GUJ) ON WHICH R ELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. 10 29. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO.LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OT HERS [118 ITR 326(S.C.)] HAD HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESU MPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERY ONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW, BUT THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT: THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SAME IS APPLICABLE ONLY TILL THE TIME THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS MADE AWARE THROUGH THE NOTICE OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT OR HAD BE COME AWARE ON ITS OWN NOTION. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION WOU LD CHANGE AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE FOR FILING THE AIRS. THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS WELL AWARE OF THE LEGAL PO SITION AND ITS OBLIGATIONS. 30. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AS REFERRE D TO BY US IN PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE CASE OF THE SPECIFIED PERSONS BEFORE US IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA O F THE ACT BEING NEWLY INTRODUCED WERE NOT IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BECAUSE OF THE SAME THERE WAS DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID PROVISIONS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA TH AT IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND BECAUSE OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAID PR OVISIONS, THERE WAS DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE PRESCRIBED INFO RMATION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS L EVIABLE FOR THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE BY WHI CH THE SPECIFIED PERSONS BECAME AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS O R THROUGH ANY OTHER MODE, AS THERE WAS REASONABLE CAU SE FOR NOT FILING THE SAID INFORMATION IN TIME. HOWEVER, T HE SAID PLEA OF NON-AWARENESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD AFTER THE SAID DATE. FURTHER, THE PERSON CANNOT TAKE SHELTER UNDER THE P LEA THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED, IT WAS NOT AWA RE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS, AS THE ONUS IS UPON THE PERSONS TO FUR NISH THE INFORMATION. IN SUCH CASES, THE DATE OF FIRST NOTIC E OR DATE OF FURNISHING THE FIRST AIR UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, WOULD BE THE DATE OF NOTICE. 31. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL AND VENIAL B REACH, NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSABLE, FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PL ACED ON HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 2 6 (S.C) AND C.T.RAMANATHAN AND CO. VS ITO, 34 TTJ 125 (MAD) . 32. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGEMENTS, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED PARTICULARS I N RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF SALE VALUE OF RS. 30 LACS OR ABOVE UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TERMED MERELY BR EACH OF TECHNICAL NATURE BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFOR MATION, THE REVENUE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST SPECIFIED PER SONS I.E. PERSONS PURCHASING OR SELLING PROPERTIES IN VALUE E XCEEDING RS. 30 LACS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY SUB-REGISTRAR, THE DEPARTME NT CAN LOOSE HUGE REVENUE. THEREFORE, SUCH DEFAULT IS LEAD ING TO ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCES, WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS TECHNICAL. 11 33. SECONDLY, IN ANY CASE, GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PAT AN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA)HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS STATE OF ORISSA (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS IDENTICAL AND STILL HELD THE PENALTY TO BE LEVIABLE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 34. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN H.M. T. LTD. TRACTORS DIVISION VS CIT [ 274 ITR 544 (P&H) ] HAVE LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE THE TAX AT SOURC E HAD BEEN PAID IN TIME AND THE NECESSARY RETURN IN RESPE CT THEREOF WAS FILED IN TIME WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPAR TMENT, ON MERE LATE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS MERELY TECHNICAL OR VENIA L IN NATURE AND PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE SAID D ECISION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ISSUE IN VIEW OF T HE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. 35. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHER E THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR WITHIN TIME, COU LD NOT BE SAID TO BE MERE TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH. 36. THE NEXT PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO TAX INVOLVEMENT AND IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE RETURN WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME DOES NOT STAND AS SIMILAR PLEA WAS RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DI T (CIB) (SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED AS UND ER: 'AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY CASE, THE REVENUE HAD NO USE FOR THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, WHEN THERE I S A STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ANN UAL INFORMATION RETURN, IT IS BOUND BY IT. HOW AND IN W HAT MANNER THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES MAKE USE OF THE SAID INFORMATION IS NOT THE LOOK OUT OF THE PETITIO NER. THE PETITIONER IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS PRESCRIBED, FAILING WHI CH IT HAS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURE. BESIDES, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, ON ACCOUNT OF NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION IN TIME, THE REVENUE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION. 37. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIB UNAL IN SUB REGISTRAR VS DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140/A SR/2013 VIDE ORDER 30.05.2013 HAD APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAK ARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA)AND HAD HELD THAT TH E PERIOD OF PENALTY IS TO BE WORKED OUT FROM THE FIRST ADVIS ORY LETTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF IGNORANCE OF L AW MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS REJECTED IN VIEW OF RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGR IK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA). BUT THE P LEA OF REASONABLE CAUSE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF FIRST AD VISORY LETTER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 12 38. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE US IS IN RELATION TO THE FURNISHING OF INFOR MATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE AN D PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 30 LACS OR ABOVE. TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AWARENES S OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO AS NO TAN NUMBER WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, INFORMATION WAS FURNIS HED MANUALLY WITH THE CONCERNED OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTM ENT AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE SAID DEPARTMENT F OR FURNISHING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION WAS UPLOADED ON THE NSDL ON A LATER DAT E. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT SUCH INFORMA TION FURNISHED MANUALLY BE ACCEPTED AS DATE OF COMPLIANC E TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. ON THE PER USAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 I.E. IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, JAG ADHARI, WE FIND THAT THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DIT (CIB) VIDE PARA 7 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (CIB) THEREAFTER HAD ACCEPTED THE DATE OF FURNISHIN G OF MANUAL INFORMATION AS DATE OF COMPLIANCE TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND HAD COMPUTED THE PE NALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT UPTO SUCH D ATE I.E. IN THE CASE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, THE PERIOD O F PENALTY WAS DETERMINED UPTO 11.10.2006 I.E. OF 41 DAYS, THO UGH THE INFORMATION ON NSDL WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE O N A LATER DATE. 39. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS REGARD IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA O F THE ACT AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE THE RETURN EITHE R WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY OR WITH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, UNDER THE PROVISO T O RULE 114E(3) OF THE IT RULES, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE A IR IS TO BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY ON BEHALF OF THE D IT (CIB), WHO IN TURN WOULD UPLOAD IT ON THE SOFTWARE. IN CA SES WHERE THE PERSON HAD FILED AIR WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHOR ITY BUT HAD NOT UPLOADED THE SAME THROUGH THE NSDL, THEN TH E SAME WOULD BE A TECHNICAL DEFAULT AND THE PERSON COULD B E HELD TO HAVE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE INFOR MATION THROUGH NSDL AND NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT BETWEEN T HE DATE OF FURNISHING THE INFORMATION MANUALLY AND THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE INFORMATION THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED A GENCY I.E. NSDL. HOWEVER, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF HAVING FURNISHED COMPLETE INF ORMATION MANUALLY TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, WHICH IN-TURN WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY ON A LATER DATE. THE CASE OF REASONABLE CAUSE ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE BE NEFIT OF NON-LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE IS BEING ACCEPTED IN THE PRESENT YEARS WHICH ARE THE INITIAL YEARS WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT WERE INTRODUCED AND THERE WAS NON-AWARENESS ABO UT THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PLEA WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN LATER YEARS AS COMPLETE 13 AWARENESS ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY HAS BEEN M ADE AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS. 40. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN REFERRED TO VARIOUS REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE DIFFER ENT OFFICERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTIC ES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON THE INFORMATION FURNISHED AS PER THE REPLY PLACED AT PA GE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT T HE SAID INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF T HE ACT IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS TO RS. 30 LACS, WHICH IS NOT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. HENCE, NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE SAME HAVE TO BE IGNORED. SIMILAR PLEA WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER YEARS BUT THERE IS NO BASIS OF THE SAME AS THE PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK REFLECTS THE SAID INFORMATION TO BE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES TRAN SACTIONS OF SALE VALUE BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS AND RS. 30 LACS WH EREAS UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, THE INFORMATION IS TO BE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD HAVING SALE VALUE OF RS. 30 LACS OR MORE. THE SAID PLEAS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE, THUS REJECTED. 41. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABOVE, IN-TURN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CI B) (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPU TE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT AND THE PERIOD OF PENALTY IN FURNISHING THE INFORMATION WOU LD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS : 1. NO PENALTY TO BE LEVIED TILL THE FIRST NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION HOLDING THE SAME TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE AIRS IN TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS, THE DATE OF FILING THE FIRST AIR WOULD BE DATE OF NOTICE. 2. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED MANUAL INFORMATION BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 30 LACS OR MORE AND NOT UPLOADED THE SAID INFORMATION THROUGH APPOINTED AGENCY, THEN DEFAULT BETWEEN DATE OF FURNISHING MANUAL INFORMATION AND UPLOADING ON SYSTEM, BEING TECHNICAL IS TO BE IGNORED, WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED BY DIT (CIB) IN MAJORITY OF CASES. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE INFORMATION OF MANUALLY FURNISHING THE COMPLETE INFORMATION, WHICH IN TURN WAS UPLOADED. 14 3. NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT TO BE IMPOSED FOR THE OVERLAPPING PERIOD OF DEFAULT. FOR EG. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING AIRS FOR FOUR FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 AND THE FIRST NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ON 01.01.2006, THEN IN ALL THE YEARS, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE FOR DEFAULT UPTO 01.01.2006 AND IS LEVIABLE FOR THE DEFAULT THEREAFTER. 43. HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SPECIFIED PERSONS BE YOND THE ABOVESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE SPECIFIED PERSO N WOULD BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT, MAKING IT ELIGIBLE TO LEV Y OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (CIB) IS D IRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. HOWEVER, R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE AFFORDED IN THIS R EGARD AND THE SPECIFIED PERSON SHALL FURNISH COMPLETE INFORMA TION BEFORE HIS DIT (CIB), WITH REGARD TO ITS SEVERAL CL AIMS, IN ORDER TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT AN D THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TH US, ALLOWED AS STATED ABOVE. 44. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. 14. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LEVIABL E UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE I N LINE WITH OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE SAID ORDER. REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE OF HAVING FURNISHED AIRS EITHER MANUALLY OR THROUGH NSDL, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, BEFORE THE DIT (CIB) TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE AIR FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN TIME, THEN HE C ANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DEFAU LT, IF ANY, THEREAFTER IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH AT TRACTS LEVY OF PENALTY 15 UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 31 ST OCTOBER, 2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH