The The Sub Registrar, V. Director of Income Tax (I & CI),

ITA 40/PAT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9562 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JM ITA NO. 40 /PAT. /2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014 - 15 SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, SUB DIVISIONAL CAMPUS, R AJAULI, NAWADA - 805125 VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), PATNA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) TAN NO. PTNS06000B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. KAUSIK KUMAR DAS , SR. DR DATE OF HE ARING : 12 .03 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 12 .0 3 .201 8 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17 .02.2016 OF DIT (I&CI) , PATNA . 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE DIT(I&CI), PATNA ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 03.11.2015 TO THE SUB - REGISTRAR, RAJAULI, NAWADA (ASSESSEE) REQUIRING HIM TO S HOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS UNDER: I REQUEST YOU TO CONDONE THE LATE FILING DUE TO HIGH PRESSU RE OF DEPARTMENTAL WORK AND NO EXPOSURE OF WORK BY CONCERNING STAFF RESULTING UNAVAILABILITY OF RECORDS OF ITA NO . 40 /PAT. /201 6 SUB REGISTRAR 2 DEEDS OF VALUE 30 LAKHS OR ABOVE ON PROPER TIME AND MASS TRANSFER OF STAFF. HOWEVER, THE DIT(I&CI) WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE A ND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.13,500/ - . 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DIRECT APPEAL. NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED EX - PARTE. THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. DIT(I&C I). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIT(I&CI) DIRECTLY TO THE ITAT AN D NOT TO THE CIT(A PPEAL ) . 6. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT NO DIRECT APPEAL CAN BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIT(I&CI). THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AT ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SUB - REGISTRAR, TEHS IL OFFICER, KUMARSAIN, FATEHGARH SAHIB VS DIT(CIB), CHANDIGARH IN ITA NOS. 1184, 1185, 1186 & 1189/CHD/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2011 HELD AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPELLANT CAN FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTLY WITHOUT FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THIS CONNECTION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT NOW THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED IN F.NO.279/M - 31/2010 - SO(ITJ) ON THIS POINT. HE ALSO FILED ON RECORD A COPY OF PAGE NO. 5 & 6 ITA NO . 40 /PAT. /201 6 SUB REGISTRAR 3 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION. WE FIND THAT IN THE ABOVE NOTIFICATION, THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT U/S 246A(1)(Q), OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO DISPOSE OF ANY PENAL TY LEVIED U/S 271FA AND THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BAR ON CIT(APPEALS) PASSING AN APPEAL ORDER AGAINST PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT(CIB), WHO IS EQUIVALENT TO THE RANK OF CIT(APPEALS). IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THAT WHETHER CIT(APPEAL S) AND DIT(CIB) ARE EQUIVALENT IN RANK OR NOT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CAN HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB). FURTHER IT IS CLARIFIED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR THAT U/S 246A(1)(Q) O INCOME TAX ACT, CIT(APPEALS) HAS POWERS TO HEAR AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER CHAPTER XXI OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE CBDT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) BEFORE FILING AN APPEAL DIRECTLY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION, WE ARE DISMISSING ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. SIMILARLY, THE IT AT JODHPUR BENCH IN ITA NO. 292/JODH/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, POST PADAMPUR, SRIGANGANAGAR VS DIT(I&CI), JAIPUR RAJASTHAN VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.2012 HELD AS UNDER: 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUB - REGISTRAR, SRI DUNGARGARH VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 560/JU/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008 - 09 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 3.5.2010, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO DIRECT APPEAL LIES BEFORE THE ITAT IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE ACT AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ITA NO . 40 /PAT. /201 6 SUB REGISTRAR 4 HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 3. IN CATENA OF CASES, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD ENTERTAINED A VIEW THAT NO DIRECT APPEAL LIES BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. FOR THIS REASON, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS DISMI SSED AS ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 3.5.2010. 2.4 SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 3.5.2010 OF THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR IN THE CASE OF SUB - REGISTRAR, SRI DUNGARGARH VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 560/JU/2009, THIS DIRECT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE ITAT IS DISMISSED CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 8. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 /03/2018 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 /0 3 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR