The Sub Registrar, Trichur V. The DCIT, Trichur

ITA 510/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2615 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R GOPAKUMAR
• Section: 27; 56

Judgement Text

ITA NO 510 /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 . 510 /COCH/2015 (FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14) THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OLLUKARA MANNUTHY TRICHUR VS DIRECTOR OF I COME TAX (I&CI) KOCHI ( APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. /TAN NO CHNSO3496D ASSESSEE BY SH K K SHAJA KUMARAN , S UB REGISTRAR REVENUE BY SH K R GOPAKUMAR, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 30 TH DEC 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4 TH JAN 2016 OR D ER PER GEORGE GEORGE.K JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, OLLUKARA, TRICHUR , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7 TH SEPT 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. ITA NO 510 /COCH/2015 2 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 INFO RMATION REPORT (AIR) UNDER SECTION 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 5.2.2015 . THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 1 58 DAYS IN FILING THE AIR. ACCORDING TO DIRECT OR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY; THEREFORE , HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 15,800 / - (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 APPEA LABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL U/S 253 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 TA X (CIB) VS RAVI VIJAY REPORTED 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 6A (1)(Q) OF THE I T ACT 1961. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ( SUPRA ) READS AS UNDE R: 6 T H E Q U E S T I O N BEF O R E TH 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 T HE CO M M I SS I O N ER APPEAL S . SECTI 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 ITA NO 510 /COCH/2015 3 A PP EA L S . FR O M A MERE RE A DIN G OF T H 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 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 UND 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 S S 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 AN IDEN TICAL ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 347/COCH/201 IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THIRUVALLA AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 8 TH SEPT 2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, PALI CITED SUPRA. SINCE THE ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271FA IS NOT APPEALABLE U/S 253 OF THE IT ACT TO THE TRIBUNAL AND IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS AND THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL, CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL, AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ITA NO 510 /COCH/2015 4 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, OLLUKKARA, TROCHUR , IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JAN 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) (GEORGE GEORGE .K ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 4 TH JAN 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT , 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN