WHITEFIELD CAPITAL & LEASING LTD., MUMBAI V. DIT (I & CI), MUMBAI

ITA 6522/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3144 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE DIRECTED AGAINST S DATED
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 6522 /MUM/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ITA NO 652 3 /MUM/20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 20 11 - 1 2 M/S WHITEFIELD CAPITAL & LEASING LIMITED FLAT NO. 117, MOTIWALA HOUSE, WALCHANG HIRACHAND MARG, MUMBAI 400021. VS.` DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) EARNEST HOUSE, 12 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 1201, OPP. N.C.P.A, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021. PAN/GIR NO. AAACW0474E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM TH ESE TWO APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER S DATED 30.09.2013 AND 27.09.2013 OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 . WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6522 /MUM/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ASSESSED BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI B.D. NAIK DATE OF HEARING 01.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 .09.2015 2 ITA NO 6522/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ITA NO 6523/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2011 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 5 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 21300/ - U/S 271FA OF THE ACT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I& CI) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT REASON FOR NON FILING OF ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 285BA WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR EITHER PERSONALLY OR TH ROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND, THEREFORE, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE APPEAR ED TO HAVE RAISED MONEY FROM MARKET BY ISSUE OF BONDS AND DEBENTURES. AS PER THE R ULES 114E INCOME TAX RULES 1962 , ANY PERSON RAISING MONEY FROM THE MARKET IS LIABLE TO FILE AN AIR (ANNUAL INFORMATION RE PORT ) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA (1) IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 61A. THE A SSESSEE HAVING RAISED MONEY FROM THE MARKET FILED THE AIR LATE BY 213 DAY. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271FA DATED 29.03.2012 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PENALTY U/S 271FA SHOULD NOT BE LEV IED FO R LATE FURNISHING OF RETURN. IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED MANUALLY AND ALSO THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR, THE RETURN 3 ITA NO 6522/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ITA NO 6523/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2011 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 5 COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED IGNORANCE ABOUT FILING THE AIR. AGAIN A NOTICE ON 17.09.2013 WAS ISSUED FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 27.09.2013, WHICH WAS NOT ATTENDED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRE D TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OR REPORTABLE ACCOUNT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 285BA, FAILS TO FURNISH THE STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) THEREOF, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY DIRECT SUCH PERSON TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF RS. 100/ - FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), MUMBAI REJECTED THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE FOR DELAYED FILING THE AIR DUE TO MANUAL BOOK KEEPING AND IGNORANCE ABOUT AIR AND IMPOSED A PE NALTY OF RS. 21,300/ - FOR THE DELAY OF 213 DAYS @ 100 PER DAY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA BY HOLDING THAT REASON S AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) ALLOWED DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE DELAY OF 213 DAYS DUE TO BONAFIDE REASON S FOR FAILURE TO FILE SUCH RETURN . WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 27.09.2013 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) AND ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE US ON 4 ITA NO 6522/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ITA NO 6523/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2011 - 12 PAGE 4 OF 5 01.09.2015 . WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS BEFORE US FIND NO REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI) AND ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 6523/MUM/2012. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT DECIDED BY US IN ITA NO. 6522/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 1 2 , WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR FAILURE TO FILE SUCH RETURN LATE BY 238 DAYS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 17.09.2013 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I& CI) AND ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE US ON 01.09.2015 DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH A DELAY. THEREFORE OUR DECISION IN ITA NO . 6522 /MUM/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THIS APPEAL. 6 . IN THE RESULT APPE AL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 3 0 - 09 - 2015 SKS SR. P.S 5 ITA NO 6522/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ITA NO 6523/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2011 - 12 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CONCERNED CIT(A) THE CONCERNED CIT THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI