The Citizen Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Jalandhar V. The Director of Income tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 64/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5699 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 80G; 12AA; 147; 246; 263; 132; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.64 & 65(ASR)/2011 FINANCIAL YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 PAN :AAAAT6369E THE CITIZEN URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), JALANDHAR. SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. J.S.BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VP THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH, DATED 06.01.2010, RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEARS,2004-05 & 2 005-06. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.85,600/- AND RS.63,700/- FOR DELAYED FILING O F AIR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06. THE ISSUE IS COMMON AND, T HEREFORE, WE WILL DECIDE THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 15 TH JUNE, 2011, PASSED IN ITA NOS. 404 TO 407(ASR)/2010, RELATING T O FINANCIAL YEARS 2005- 06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09, IN THE CASE OF SUB- REGISTRAR, TEHSIL OFFICE, NAKODAR VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), C HANDIGARH. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS OF SUB-REGISTRAR, TEHSIL OFFIC E, NAKODAR VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CHANDIGARH (SUPRA), WE HAVE HELD THA T THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEA L AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, TEHSIL OFFI CE, NAKODAR (SUPRA), ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, SH. TARSEM LAL, THE LD. DR, VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURIS DICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE APPEALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CONCERNED LD. CIT(A), AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 246A(1)(Q) OF THE ACT, AND NOT BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271FA, HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE T RIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI J.S. BHASIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEALS AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS. IN OUR VIEW, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPE ALS PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH, BECAUSE T HERE IS NO PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT, TO ENTERTA IN THE APPEALS BY THE TRIBUNAL. SECTION 253 OF THE ACT, READS AS UNDE R: 3 APPEALS TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 253. (1) ANY ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS MAY APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER ( A ) AN ORDER PASSED BY A [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S)] [BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998] [OR, AS THE CASE MY B E, A COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] UNDER [***] [ SECTION 154 ], [***] SECTION 250 , [ SECTION 271 , SECTION 271A OR SECTION 272A ]; OR [( B ) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLA USE ( C ) OF SECTION 158BC , IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQ UISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997; OR] [( BA ) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115VZC ; OR] ( C ) AN ORDER PASSED BY A COMMISSIONER [UNDER SECTION 12AA [OR UNDER CLAUSE ( VI ) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G ] OR] UNDER SECTION 263 [OR UNDER SECTION 271 ] [OR UNDER SECTION 272A ] [***] OR AN ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 154 AMENDING HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ] [OR AN ORDER PASSED BY A CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR A DIRECTOR GENERAL OR A DIRECTOR UNDER SECTION 272A ; [OR]] [( D ) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB - SECTION (3), OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR AN OR DER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER.] (2) THE COMMISSIONER MAY, IF HE OBJECTS TO ANY ORDE R PASSED BY A [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998] 1 [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, A COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] UNDER [ SECTION 154 OR] SECTION 250 , DIRECT THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER TO APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER. (3) EVERY APPEAL UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECT ION (2) SHALL BE FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE : [ PROVIDED THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) OF SUB- SECTION (1), THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS SIXTY DAYS, THE WORDS THIRTY DAYS HAD BEEN SUBS TITUTED.] 4 (4) THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] HAS BEEN PREFERRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) BY THE OTHER PARTY, MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT H E MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAINST SUCH ORDER OR ANY PART THEREOF; WI THIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, FILE A MEMORANDUM OF CRO SS-OBJECTIONS, VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, AGAINST ANY PART OF THE ORDER 8 OF THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CAS E MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], AND SUCH MEMORANDUM SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS IF IT WERE AN APPEA L PRESENTED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3). (5) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR P ERMIT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTER THE EXPIRY O F THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTIO N (4), IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. (6) AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE I N THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SHALL, IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL MADE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS RELATING THERETO, BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF, ( A ) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPUTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES, IS ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES OR LESS, FIVE HUNDRED RUPEE S, ( B ) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUTED AS AFORESAID, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MORE THA N ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES BUT NOT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUS AND RUPEES, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES, ( C ) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUTED AS AFORESAID, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MORE THA N TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES, ONE PER CENT OF THE ASSESSED INCOM E, SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES, ( D ) WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL RELATES TO ANY MATTER, OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES ( A ), ( B ) AND ( C ), FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES:] 5 PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH FEE SHALL BE PAYABLE IN THE CASE OF A N APPEAL REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) OR A MEMORANDUM OF C ROSS-OBJECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4). (7) AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND SHALL BE AC COMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES. 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO POWER TO EN TERTAIN THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271F A, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS CA NNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWERS HAV E BEEN GIVEN TO THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 246A(1)(Q), WHICH READS AS UND ER: SEC. 246A(1)(Q) : AN ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE APPOINTED DAY) MAY APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGAINST: AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER CHAPTER XXI 6.2. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 246 A(1)(Q) OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER CHAPTER XX I CAN BE PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 271FA FALLS UNDER THE CHAPTER XXI OF THE ACT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THESE APPEALS C ANNOT BE ADMITTED BY US, PARTICULARLY, WHEN WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION U NDER THE LAW TO ENTERTAIN SUCH APPEALS. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS AL L THE APPEALS, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 7. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS F REE TO PREFER APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME -TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH, IN RIGHT FORUM, IF SO ADVISED. 8 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. 6 4. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THI S BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15 TH JUNE, 2011, PASSED IN THE CASE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, T EHSIL OFFICE, NAKODAR VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (SUPRA), WE DIS MISS ALL THESE APPEALS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:20TH JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE CITIZEN URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. JAL ANDHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH. 3. THE SR DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR. 7