The Sub-Registrar, Barnagar V. The Dirctor of Income Tax (CIB), Bhopal

ITA 534/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53878 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND MANTRI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.533 & 534/IND/2010 A.Y. 2009-10 SUB-REGISTRAR, NAGDA PAN BPLOO 0576 C SUB-REGISTRAR, BARNAGAR PAN BPLOO 0780 D APPELLANTS VS DIT (CIB), BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARVIND MANTRI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.8.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 10.5.2010 OF DIRECTOR OF INC OME TAX (CIB), BHOPAL ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND I N THE 2 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(CIB) ERRED I N IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271FA OF RS.23,900/- & RS.1,700/-, RESP ECTIVELY, FOR NON-FILING OF ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN BY THE APPE LLANTS. BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY THE LD. CIT(CIB) WAS INFORME D ABOUT THE FILING OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN BY THE ASSE SSEES. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE P LEA THAT THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH REQUIRED FOR PLEADING THE CASES, W ERE NOT COMPLETE. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES ON 20.7.2011, CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS ENOUGH TIME WITH THE ASSESSEES TO ACQUIRE THE DOCUMENTS, I F ANY, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICA TION, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADJOURNMENT PETITIONS ARE REJECTE D. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI ARVIND MANTRI, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND SHRI AR UN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES IS THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME, THE SUB-REGISTRARS, NAGD A & BARNAGAR, WHO WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL I NFORMATION FOR FY 2008-09 WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE BENCH ASKED THE LD. AR WHETHER HE IS READY TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AT BAR. T HE LD. 3 COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEES REPLIED IN AFFIRMATIVE. IN VI EW OF THIS ASSERTION, WE TAKE THE STATEMENT TO BE CORRECT AND PROCEED WITH THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR SHRI ARUN DEWAN STRONGLY DE FENDED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ANNUAL IN FORMATION RETURN WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OF SEC. 285 BA OF THE ACT OR ON BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FY IN WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE REG ISTERED OR RECORDED. THE ASSESSEES SUB-REGISTRARS, NAGDA & BAR NAGAR, RESPECTIVELY, WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL I NFORMATION ON OR BEFORE 31.8.2009. HOWEVER, NO SUCH INFORMATION W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. NOTICE U/S 285 BA (5) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES REQUIRING TO FILE THE INFORMATION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT BY 26.10.2009. HOWEVER, IN TH E ABSENCE OF FILING OF RETURN/INFORMATION UP TO 26.10.2009, N OTICE U/S 271FA R.W.S. 274 DATED 11.11.2009 WAS ISSUED TO THE 4 RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271FA SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. AS PER THE REVENUE, NO NE ATTENDED. HOWEVER, LATER ON, ON 26.2.2010, THE CLER K OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND SUBMITTED THE R EPLY DATED 25.11.2009, IN MANUAL FORM, ALONG WITH LIST OF TRAN SACTIONS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES VALUING RS.5 LACS A ND ABOVE, REGISTERED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLE RK WAS DIRECTED TO FILE THE INFORMATION AS REQUIRED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED. ON 11.3.2010, THE SUB-REGISTRAR PERSONA LLY ATTENDED BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PROOF OF FILING OF AIR. PENALTY U/S 271FA TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,900/- & RS.1 ,700/-, RESPECTIVELY, WAS IMPOSED WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGED . 4. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT AT BAR, THAT T HE SUB-REGISTRAR WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT TI ME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT F ILING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD. IT I S PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT LATER ON, THE ASSESSEES DULY APPE ARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT A LENIENT VIEW IS REQUIRED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CLERK OF THE ASSESSEE DULY 5 APPEARED AND FILED THE INFORMATION ON MANUAL FORM. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. OUR VIEW IS FORTI FIED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SKYLINE AUTO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (271 ITR 335)/142 TAXMAN 558 (MP) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT W HEN MISTAKE IS BONA FIDE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY, SO IMPOSED, IS DELETED IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2011. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.8.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYAS!