Sub-Registrar, Rashmi, CHITTORGARH V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), JAIPUR

ITA 568/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1586 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.568/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SUB-REGISTRAR RASHMI, VS. THE DIT (CIB), DIST CHITTORGARH RAJASTHAN JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) TAN NO. JDHTO 1813 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2013 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2010 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOM E TAX (CIB), JAIPUR. 2 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE REAL FACTS AND IMPOSED HUGE PENALTY U/S 271FA WHICH IS NOT PROPER AND AGAINST THE NATUR AL LAW OF JUSTICE. 2. THAT LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT NEEDS JUSTICE AND SUBMITS T HE APPEAL FOR WANT OF RELIEF AND JUSTICE WHICH MAY BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORD. 3. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 31 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY BY SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION DATE D 29.11.2010 STATING THAT A LITTLE DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO CONTINUOUS OUT-STATION PROGRAMME OF THE CONCERNED OFFICER. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, ALTHOUGH NOT CONVI NCING, HOWEVER, BY TAKING A LIBERAL VIEW, WE CONDONE THE D ELAY AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE DIT (CIB), JAIPUR ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR (TEHSIL DAR) REQUIRING HIM TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PENALTY U/S 271 FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE ANNUAL INTIMATION RETURN (AIR) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE D TIME. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE, TH E DIT[CIB], JAIPUR LEVIED PENALTY @ RS. 100/- PER DAY FOR 344 DAYS [WHICH WAS THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN FILING THE A IR] AMOUNTING TO RS. 34,400/-. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL DELAY IN FILING THE AIR, HENCE P ENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT DIRECT APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIT, [CIB] WAS NOT MAINTAI NABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, HE REQUESTED THAT EV EN IF APPEAL IS TO BE DISMISSED, LIBERTY MAY BE ALLOWED T O THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHOR ITY, 4 I.E. THE CIT(A). IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE DIT [CIB]. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDIC ATED UPON BY THE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGIS TRAR, SRI DUNGARGARH VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), JA IPUR IN ITA NO. 560/JU/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 3.5.2010, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO DIRECT APPEAL LIES BEFORE THE ITAT IN RESPECT O F ORDER PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE ACT AND THE RELEVANT FINDIN GS 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 DISMISSED AS ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 3.5.2010. 5 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO ORDER DATED 3.5.2010 OF THE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH, JOD HPUR IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, SRI DUNGARGARH VS. DI RECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 560/JU/2009, TH IS DIRECT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE ITAT IS DISMISSED CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NON-MAINTAINABLE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR