Sub Registrar, Ambala V. DIT (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 48/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68564 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Competent authority; Ignorance of law
• Section: 273B; 133(6)

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. 48 TO 50/CHD/2012 A.YS. : 2006-07 TO 200 9-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(C IB), VPO BARARA, CHANDIGARH. AMBALA. PAN NO.RTKT-02827G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.11.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. THE BUNCH OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 02.11.2011 RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY AG AINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT FOR SHORT ). ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE ABOVESAID APPEALS BUT REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 48/CHD/2012, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY AN 2 INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCO ME-TAX (CIB) WHEREAS AS PER SECTION 285BA THE COMPETENT AUTHORIT Y IS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) WHICH IS NOT CURABLE UNDER SECT ION 292B. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AIR AND NO REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS DEFECTED AS NOTICES MENTIONED ON PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER WERE NEVER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.10.2013 AND AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, WHO ALSO ENCLOSED A POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 13.95.2012. THE PERUSAL OF RECORD REFLECTED THAT WRITTEN STATEM ENT IN THE CASE HAD BEEN FILED ON 24.2.2012 BY THE COUNSEL MR. SANJ EEV MISHRA. ALL THE EARLIER CORRESPONDENCE I.E. SEEKING ADJOURN MENT ETC. WAS MOVED BY THE COUNSEL MR. SANJEEV MISHRA. 4. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN EARLIER APPEALS WH ICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ARGUED BY DIFFERENT COUNSELS AND THE CONCERNED DR AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 43 4/CHD/2012. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE THAT THE ORDERS IN ITA NO. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 HAVE BEEN PRO NOUNCED TODAY AND THE ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL, THE SAID APPEA LS WERE TREATED AS HEARD. AFTER THE RISE OF THE BENCH, SOMETIMES I N THE AFTERNOON, AN APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COUNSEL MR. SA NJEEV MISHRA FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE, TO WHICH HE HAD ENCLOS ED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN HIS FAVOUR. HOWEVER, WE PROCEED TO DEC IDE THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEING DECIDED BY US IN OTHER SET OF APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT SUB REGISTRARS. 3 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE PRESCRI BED AUTHORITIES WERE REQUIRED TO FILE THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09 ON THE RESPECTIV E DATES AND ALL THE SAID INFORMATIONS WERE FILED LATE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FROM THE RECORDS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED T HE INFORMATION THROUGH NSDL ON 08.12.2010 AS PER THE CHART TABULAT ED UNDER PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW C AUSED TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RE QUISITE INFORMATION FOR THE DIFFERENT YEARS IN CD BEFORE TH E DIT (CIB) AND THE REASON FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF THE SAID AIR WAS NON-AVAILABILITY OF TAN. THE DIT (CIB) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN D EFAULT AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT @ RS. 100/- PER DAY FOR DEFAULT. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS RELA TING TO FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE DROPPED AS NO DATA W AS DUE FOR THE SAID TWO YEARS. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OBSE RVING THAT, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT I.E . THE SUB REGISTRAR, MULANA, DISTT.AMBALA HAS BEEN FILED AIRS LATE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I.E. RIGHT FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 -05 TO 2008-09. THE APPELLANT DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY ADVISORY LETTE RS WHICH WERE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIT (CIB) F.NO. CIT/CIB/CHD/AIR/2006-07/AMB/5/1313 DATED 29.11.2006 NO. 364- 365 DATED 10.5.2007, 51 DATED 10.4.2008, 1806 DATED 13.2.2009, 888 DATED 22.06.2009 AND NO. 2408 DATED 5.11.2009. 7. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE 4 CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 434 /CHD/2012 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013, IT HAS BEEN HE LD AS UNDER : 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED AN OBLIGATION TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT BY THE PRESCRIBED PERSON FOR THE SPECIFIED TRANSACTION WIT HIN STIPULATED TIME. THE SUB REGISTRAR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSAC TION OF PURCHASE AND SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS.30 LACS OR MORE. THE DUE DAT E FOR FILING THE SAID AIR INFORMATION IN FORM NO.61A IS 3 1 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. THE ON US IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SPECIFIED INFORMAT ION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. 24. COMING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF TH E ACT, THE SUB-SECTION (1) PROVIDES THE LIST OF PERSO NS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETU RN IN 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 FURNISHED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY I. E. THE DIRECTOR 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- SECTION (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 T HE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED OR RECORDED, IN FORM NO. 61A, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 114E OF THE INCOME TAX RUL ES. SUB-SECTION (3) DEFINES SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSAC TION, WHICH MAY BE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE BOARD H AS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE DIFFERENT VALUES FOR DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT PERS ONS, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF SAID TRANSACTION. U NDER SUB-SECTION (4) WHERE THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY CONSIDERS THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN FURNISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) TO BE DEFECTIVE, TH EN 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 CAS E SAID DEFECTS ARE NOT REMOVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED OR EXTENDED PERIOD THEN SUCH RETURNS WOULD BE TREATED AS AN INVALID RETURN AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AS IF THE PERSON HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN. UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) WHERE TH E PRESCRIBED PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED ANNUAL INFORMAT ION RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBED I NCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIO D NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS. 5 25. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE AC T, PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN THE EVENT OF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR INFORM ATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. SECTION 271 FA OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: [ PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN. 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 TRANSPIRES THAT WHERE THE PRESCRIBED PERSON IS REQU IRED TO FURNISH THE AIR AND FAILS TO FURNISH THE SAME WITHI N THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THEN SUCH PERSON COULD BE HELD TO BE LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY EQUIVALENT TO RS.100/- FO R EVERY DAY OF DEFAULT. THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS WERE INS ERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS NOT TO BE IMPOSED, WHERE THE PERSON PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR T HE SAID FAILURE/DEFAULT. THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS ALSO COVERED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. IT THUS IMPLIES THAT IN 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 SE CTION 273B OF THE ACT. 27. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE HON'BLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DI T (CIB) (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDE R: SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION UPON ANY PERSON, BEING AN ASSESSEE, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGISTERING OR MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS CONTAINING A RECORD OF ANY SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, IN RESPECT OF SUCH SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED BY HIM DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER THE APRIL 1, 2004, AND INFORMATION RELATING TO WHICH IS RELEVANT AND REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-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 6 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 DATE 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 TH AT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 285BA OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT WHERE THE PERSON HAD NOT FURNISHED THE AIR RET URN UNDER SECTION 285BA(1) OF THE ACT, SUB-SECTION (5) THEREOF LAYS DOWN THAT PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM T O FURNISH SAID RETURN WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE HON'BLE COURT CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THA T UPON SUCH NOTICE BEING SERVED, THE PETITIONER CAN N O LONGER PLEAD THAT IT WAS UNAWARE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SAME. THE HON'BLE COURT THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED THAT HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS NOT IMMEDIATELY T AKEN STEPS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST NOTICE ON DEC EMBER 17, 2008, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REASONABLE CAU SE MADE OUT BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR THERETO SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHI LE CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED U NDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 17, 20 08, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT, ANY DEFAU LT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE VIEWED AS A CON SCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND AS SUCH, IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO, THE PETIT IONER 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 RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONE R. 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 PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERY ONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW, BU T THAT 7 IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT: THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SAME IS APPLICABLE ONLY TIL L THE TIME THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS MADE AWARE THROUGH TH E NOTICE OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT OR HAD BECOME AWARE ON ITS OWN NOTION. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION WOULD CHANGE AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE NO TICE FOR FILING THE AIRS. THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS WELL AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION 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 SPECIFI ED PERSONS BEFORE US IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF 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 I N THE SAID PLEA THAT IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY INTRODUCED PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND BECAUSE OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAID PROVISIONS, THERE WAS DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION BEFORE THE IN COME TAX AUTHORITIES. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE FOR THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE BY WHICH THE SPECIFIE D PERSONS BECAME AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS OR THROUGH ANY OTHER MODE, AS THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT F ILING THE SAID INFORMATION IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE SAID PLE A OF NON-AWARENESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT CANNOT B E 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 NO T AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS, AS THE ONUS IS UPON THE P ERSONS TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION. IN SUCH CASES, THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE OR DATE OF FURNISHING THE FIRST AIR UN DER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, WOULD BE THE DATE OF NOTI CE. 31. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL AND VENIAL BREACH, NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSABLE, FOR WHICH RELIANC E WAS PLACED ON HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 (S.C) AND C.T.RAMANATHAN AND CO. V S 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 LAC S OR ABOVE UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TERM ED MERELY BREACH OF TECHNICAL NATURE BECAUSE ON THE BA SIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, THE REVENUE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST SPECIFIED PERSONS I.E. PERSONS PURCHASING O R SELLING PROPERTIES IN VALUE EXCEEDING RS. 30 LACS A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY SUB-REGISTRAR, THE DEPARTMENT CAN LOOSE HU GE REVENUE. THEREFORE, SUCH DEFAULT IS LEADING TO ENOR MOUS CONSEQUENCES, WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS TECHNICAL. 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 8 (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS IDENTICAL AND STILL HELD THE PENALTY TO BE LEVIABLE. WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE PLEA 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 SOURCE HAD BEEN PAID IN TIME AND THE NECESSARY R ETURN IN RESPECT THEREOF WAS FILED IN TIME WITH THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT, ON MERE LATE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND T HE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE W AS MERELY TECHNICAL OR VENIAL IN NATURE AND PENALTY CO ULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE SAID DECISION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN ABOV E. 35. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHER E THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR WITHIN TIME, COULD 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 LT D. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: '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 IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNIS H ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, IT IS BOUND BY IT. HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES MAKE USE OF THE SAID INFORMATION IS NOT THE LOOK OU T OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS PRESCRIBED, FAILING WHICH 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 TRIBUNAL IN SUB REGISTRAR VS DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140/ASR/2013 VIDE ORDER 30.05.2013 HAD APPLIED T HE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA)AND HAD HELD THAT THE PERIOD OF PENALTY IS T O BE WORKED OUT FROM THE FIRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF IGNORANCE OF LAW MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS REJECTED IN VIEW OF RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA). BUT THE P LEA OF REASONABLE CAUSE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF FIRST ADVISORY LETTER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 9 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 AND PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 30 LACS OR A BOVE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AWARENESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO AS NO TAN NUMBER WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED MANUALLY WITH THE CONCERN ED OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE SAID DEPARTMENT FOR FURNISHING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION WA S UPLOADED ON THE NSDL ON A LATER DATE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT SUCH INFORMATION FURNISH ED MANUALLY BE ACCEPTED AS DATE OF COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. ON THE PER USAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 4 31 TO 434/CHD/2012 I.E. IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, JAGADHARI, WE FIND THAT THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DIT (CIB) VIDE PARA 7 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF T HE ACT. THE DIT (CIB) THEREAFTER HAD ACCEPTED THE DA TE OF FURNISHING OF MANUAL INFORMATION AS DATE OF COMPLIA NCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND H AD COMPUTED THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271BA O F THE ACT UPTO SUCH DATE I.E. IN THE CASE OF FINANCIA L YEAR 2005-06, THE PERIOD OF PENALTY WAS DETERMINED UPTO 11.10.2006 I.E. OF 41 DAYS, THOUGH THE INFORMATION ON NSDL WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 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 E ITHER WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY OR WITH THE AUTHORIZE D AGENCY OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, UNDER THE PROVISO TO RULE 114E(3) OF THE IT RULES, IT IS CLAR IFIED THAT THE AIR IS TO BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORIZED AGE NCY ON BEHALF OF THE DIT (CIB), WHO IN TURN WOULD UPLOAD I T ON THE SOFTWARE. IN CASES WHERE THE PERSON HAD FILED AIR WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BUT HAD NOT UPLOADED THE SAME THROUGH THE NSDL, THEN THE SAME WOULD BE A TECHNICAL DEFAULT AND THE PERSON COULD BE HELD TO H AVE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION 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 AGENCY I.E. NSDL. HOWEVER, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF HAVING FURNISHED COMPLETE INFORMATION MANUALLY TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, WHICH IN-TURN WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHO RIZED AGENCY ON A LATER DATE. THE CASE OF REASONABLE CAU SE ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE BENEFIT OF NON-LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE IS BEING ACC EPTED IN THE PRESENT YEARS WHICH ARE THE INITIAL YEARS WH EN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT WERE INTRODU CED AND THERE WAS NON-AWARENESS ABOUT THE SAID PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PLEA WOULD NOT BE 10 AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN LATER YEARS AS COMPLET E AWARENESS ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY HAS BEEN MADE 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 NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON THE INFORMATION FURNISHED AS PER THE REPLY PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT MAY BE BROU GHT ON RECORD THAT THE SAID INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION SOUG HT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS TO RS. 30 LACS, WHI CH 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 ASSESSEE 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 T HE PROPERTIES TRANSACTIONS OF SALE VALUE BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS AND RS. 30 LACS WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, THE INFORMATION IS TO BE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF TH E PROPERTIES SOLD HAVING SALE VALUE OF RS. 30 LACS OR MORE. THE SAID PLEAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THUS REJ ECTED. 41. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABO VE, IN-TURN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD . VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT AND THE PERIOD OF PENALTY IN FURNISHING THE INFORMATION WOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF FOLLO WING 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 11 UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE INFORMATION OF MANUALLY FURNISHING THE COMPLETE INFORMATION, WHICH IN TURN WAS UPLOADED. 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 P ERSON WOULD BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT, MAKING IT ELIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (CIB) IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE SAID LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. HOWEVER, REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING SHOULD BE AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD AND THE SPECIFIED PERSON SHALL FURNISH COMPLETE INFORMATION BEFORE HI S DIT (CIB), WITH REGARD TO ITS SEVERAL CLAIMS, IN ORDER TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT AND THE QUA NTUM OF PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED AS STATED ABOVE. 44. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. 8. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL T O THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONI NG, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE QUANTUM OF P ENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN LINE WITH OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE SAID ORDER. REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE OF HAVING FURNISHED AIRS EITHER MANUALLY O R 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 12 YEAR IN TIME, THEN HE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE NO KNO WLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DEFAULT, IF ANY, THEREAFT ER IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ATTRACTS LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER, 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,