The Sub Registrar, Bathinda V. The Director of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 709/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 70920914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Keywords: Application of stay; Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 TO 2009-10 PAN :AMRTI 1242A SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION (CI B), BHATINDA. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.ASHWANI KALIA, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH.AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING:30/12/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31/12/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM FIVE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), BHATINDA, EACH DATED 29.01.2013 I.E. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 005-06 TO 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE ABOVE SAID APPEALS EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961S. THE GRO UNDS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2005-06 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 2 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BHATINDA HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.17,400/- IMPOSED U/ S 271FA. 2. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BHATINDA, WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DULY EXPLAINED TO HIM. 3. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH, THE RELEVANT PART IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: AS PER THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, THE SUB-REGISTR AR/JOINT REGISTRAR, BATHINDA, DISTT. BATHINDA, THE FILER, NO T FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS (AIRS), IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT THIRTY LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW: FINANCIAL YEAR DUE DATE FOR FILING AIR FILED ON DELAY ( IN DAYS) 1. 2004-05 30.11.2005 24.05.2006 174 2. 2005-06 31.08.2006 18.01.2011 1600 3. 2006-07 31.08.2007 27.10.2007 56 4. 2007-08 31.08.2008 25.01.2011 877 5. 2008-09 31.08.2009 25.01.2011 512 IN THIS REGARD SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, WAS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE ON 23.08.2010 ASKING THE SUB-REGISTRAR TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON IT FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH THE AIRS IN TIME AND THE REPLY WAS SOUGHT BY 07.09.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE N EITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN REPLY WAS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE. ON 09.09.2010 ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY LETTER WAS ISSUED B Y THIS OFFICE FOR 04.10.2010. IN COMPLIANCE TO LETTER DATED 09.09.201 0 THE FILER FILED ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 3 AN APPLICATION OR ADJOURNMENT VIDE NO.698 DATED 04. 10.2010. ON 11.11.2010 ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS ISSUED BY T HIS OFFICE FOR 13.12.2010. ON 13.12.2010 AGAIN NEITHER ANYBODY AT TENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE FROM THE FILER. ON 22.12.2010 A FINAL OPPORTUNITY LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE FOR 19.01.2011. ON 19.01.2011, SH. AVTAR SINGH SUB-TEHSILDAR APPEAR ED IN THIS OFFICE AND WAS ASKED TO FILE AIR FOR REMAINING TWO F.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09. THE CASE WAS FINALLY ADJOURNED FOR 28.01.2 010. ON 28.01.2011 THE FILER SENT PROOF OF FILING OF AIR FO R F.T. 2007-08 & 2008-09 WHICH WERE PLACED ON RECORD.. ON 28.01.2011 ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISSUED FOR 07.02.2011. ON 07.02.2011 SH. KEWAL KRISHAN R/C APPEARED AND STATED THAT AIR FOR F.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 HAVE BEEN FILED ON 25.01.2011 AND NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED ABOUT LATE FILING OF AIR. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE FILE R I.E. THE SUB- REGISTRAR, BHATINDA, DISTT. BATHINDA (PB) HAS BEEN FILING AIRS LATE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I.E. RIGHT FROM FINANCIAL Y EAR 2004-05 TO 2008-09. THE FILER HAS ALSO NOT RESPONDED TO ANY AD VISORY LETTER F.NO. CIT/CIB/CHD/AIR/2006-07/VTH/1/1304 DATED 20.1 1.2006, DATED 04.04.2007, 1818 DATED 11.01.08, 1343 DATED 05.12.2008, 576 DATED 20.05.2009, 4284 DATED 19.01.02010 & 1404 DATED 20.07.2010 ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE. HENCE THESE FACTS MAKE THE FILER A HABITUAL DEFAULTER WITHOUT ANY CONCERN/RESPECT FOR THE LAW OF THE LAND. MENS-REA AND MALAFIDE IN LATE FILING OF AIR F OR LEVY OF PENALTY ARE THUS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE THAT SUITABLE PENALTY AS PER LAW IS LEVIED ON THE FILER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE SUB-RE GISTRAR, BATHINDA, DISTT. BATHINDA (PB.) (THE FILER) IS HELD LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE ACT @ RS.100/- PER DAY FOR DEFAULT , WHICH IS CALCULATED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AS UNDER: FINANCIAL YEAR PERIOD OF DEFAULT NO. OF DAYS OF DEFAULT AMOUNT OF PENALTY 2004-05 30.11.2005 TO 24.05.2006 174 RS.17,400/- ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 4 2005-06 01.09.2006 TO 18.01.2011 1600 RS.160,000/- 2006-07 01.09.2007 TO 27.20.2010 56 RS.5,600/- 2007-08 01.09.2008 TO 25.01.2011 877 RS.87,700/- 2008-09 01.09.2009 TO 25.01.2011 512 RS.51,200/- 3219 RS.3,21,900/- ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS.3,21,900/- (3219 X 100 ) IS IMPOSED. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLANS TO THE SU B-REGISTRAR ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER VIDE PAGE 6 & 7 OF HIS ORDER. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. ASHWANI KA LIA, CA, AT THE OUTSET, CONCEDED THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY THE OR DER OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, BA RIWALA VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS DATED 30.05.2013 BUT IN VI EW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE RELIEF HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHICH IS REFERRED IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN ITA NOS.137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS V IDE ORDER DATED ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 5 30.05.2013 IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWA LA VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ISSUE I S COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, BARIWALA VS. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140( ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS DATED 30.05.2013, THE RELEVANT PART OF WHIC H FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE MR. J.K.GUPTA THOUGH THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS I S IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140( ASR)/2013 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2013 AND THEREFORE, O UR ORDERS THEREIN SHALL APPLY IN THESE APPEALS WHEN THE FACTS IN THO SE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US. AS REGARDS THE EXCEPTION IN THESE APPEALS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR REGISTRATION IN ITA NOS. 261 & 263(ASR)/2013 AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQU IRED TO FILE THE AIR BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THIS REGAR D, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT PLACED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND ALSO EVEN BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OF REGISTRATI ON IN THE SAID YEARS. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE IS REJECTED. AS REGARDS THE CASES WHICH ARE NOMINAL NUMBER OF RE GISTRATION EXCEEDING RS.30 LACS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE REASONED FINDING THAT NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN ON THE ISSUE. M OREOVER, IT IS ONLY ON FILING OF AIR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AFTER EXAM INATION OF THE RETURN AND FACTS OF THE CASE WILL COME TO KNOW WHET HER THE FACTS DECLARED ARE CORRECT OR NOT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O US, FILING OF AIR UNDER THE ACT I.E. UNDER SECTION 285BA(1) IS MA NDATORY AND THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE SAME. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) REFERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HELP THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. AS REGA RDS THE OTHER FACTS, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN APPEALS IN ITA NO.137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 & OTHERS (SUPRA) AND OUR ORDER THEREIN SHALL BE APPLICABLE I N THE PRESENT ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 6 APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE REPRODUCE PARA 15 & 16 OF OUR ORDER DATED 30.05.2013 IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR) /2013 AS UNDER: 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P .N.ARORA WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORANT OF LAW I.E. AB OUT SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITY HAS NOT SERVED ANY NOTICES ON THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ANNUAL INFORMATI ON RETURN (IN SHORT AIR) AND NO PENALTY SHOULD BE ACCORDIN GLY LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE VI EW ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED B Y THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F.1.4.2005, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THIS SECTION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION, SECT ION 285BA WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2 004, WHERE ANY ASSESSEE WHO ENTERS INTO ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACT ION, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, SHALL FURNIS H, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IN SU CH FORM AND MANNER, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN RESPECT OF SUCH FIN ANCIAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY HIM DURING ANY PREVIOU S YEAR. RULE 114A TO 114E PRESCRIBES SUCH RETURN TO BE FUR NISHED IN FORM NO.61A AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE MANNER IND ICATED THEREIN. AT ITEM NO.6 OF THE SAID RULE, RETURN SHA LL BE FURNISHED ON OR BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS REGISTER ED OR RECORDED. SECTION 285BA(5) IS REPRODUCED FOR THE S AKE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: SECTION 285BA(5) WHERE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT FU RNISHED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBE D INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIO D NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SU CH NOTICE AND HE SHALL FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE.] ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 7 15.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TH E SHELTER OF SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ARE UNDER A MANDATE TO SERVE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IS NOT FILED FOR YEARS TOGETHER AFTER INSERTION OF THE SECTION BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT , 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004 INITIALLY AND THEREAFTER BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005 MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. WHEREAS THIS IS NOT A CASE, THE WORDS USED BY THE STATUTE IN SECTION 285BA(5) GIVES OPTION FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE NOTICE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE S ERVED UPON. THE WORD MAY USED IN SECTION 285BA(5) CLEAR LY INDICATES THE OPTION FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE SU CH NOTICE. THEREFORE, INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE STRICT LY CONSTRUED. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE SAME. THE COURTS CANN OT ADD OR AMEND AND BY CONSTRUCTION CANNOT MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ACT. IT IS CONTRARY TO ALL RULE S OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE PROVISION AS IT STANDS IS M EANINGLESS OR HAVING A DOUBTFUL MEANING. WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USURP LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION DISGUISE OF INTERPRETATI ON. THE COURTS ARE MEANT TO INTERPRET LAW, CANNOT LEGISLATE IT. OUR VIEWS FIND SUPPORTS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE U PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 277. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) IS NOT OB LIGATORY ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA , ARE REJECTED TO THIS EXTENT. 15.2. AS REGARDS THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 ISSUED BY CIT (CIB), CHANDIGARH TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SURPRISING THAT HOW THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. REASONABL E PRESUMPTION IS MADE THAT THIS NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DATED 20.11.2006 AND WHICH HAS N OT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. AS PER REMAND REPORT, AS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR AND ALSO RECORD OF DIT(CIB) WHICH HAS BEEN VERI FIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT VARIOUS NOTICES HAVE BEEN SER VED I.E. ON 20.11.2006, 04.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 & 12.03.2010. ALL THE SAID S EVEN ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 8 NOTICES REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH, AT THE LAST KNO WN ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AS UNDER: SUB REGISTRAR BARIWALA MUKTSAR 15.3. PENALTY ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 HAS BEEN SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSES SEE FILED APPEAL ON 31.01.2011 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BATHIND A. THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 HAS ALSO BEEN SERVE D UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 09.01.2013 AT THE SAME ADDRESS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE, THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2006 HAVING MENTIONED WRONG DIS TRICT IS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK CANNOT PROVE THAT THE NOTICE DATE D 20.11.2006 AND OTHER SIX NOTICES AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE HAV E NOT BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE A RGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE IS REJECTED THAT NO NOT ICE U/S 285BA(5) HAS BEEN ISSUED/SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN R EMAND PROCEEDINGS WHEN ALL NOTICES WERE CONFRONTED. THER EFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW ON SERVICE OF NOTICE CANNO T BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND CANNOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 15.4. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN FULL COGNIZAN CE OF THE SAID DECISION AND HAS DIRECTED THE CIT(CIB) TO RECOMPUTE THE DEFAULT W.E.F. 01.12.2006 INSTEAD OF 31.08.2006 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THEREAFTER IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS HAS R IGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DEFAULT BEING THE FIRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED ON 20.11.2006 IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE. 15.5. AS REGARDS THE REASONABLE CAUSE, AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE IN THE CASE OF PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (SUPR A), DECIDED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. BUT AT THE SAME TI ME, WE MAY REFER THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE, AS PE R OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE AND ALSO AS PER DECISION OF THE HONBL E GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LT D. (SUPRAAND THE SUB REGISTRAR CANNOT BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE L AW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS OF NO EXCUSE, AS DECID ED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAM PAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS RE PORTED IN (1979) ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 9 118 ITR 326 (SC). 15.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, ALL THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ARE D ISMISSED. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BARI WALA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. SINCE THE FACT S IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.137(ASR)/2013 AND THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.137(ASR)/2013 IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE I N THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 138 TO 140(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 7. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESE NT APPEALS IS COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR) /2013 AND OTHERS (SUPRA) EXCEPT THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DCIT (CIB) REPOR TED IN (2012) 349 ITR 536 (RAJ) DATED 13 TH JULY, 2011. THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AS UNDE R: 1. BY WAY OF THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION, THE PETITI ONER HAS BESEECHED TO QUASH AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10 TH AUGUST, 2010, WHEREBY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) RAJA STHAN, JAIPUR IMPOSED A PENALTY OF 20,200/- RUPEES ON THE PETITIO NER. 2. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIO NER AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE RESPONDENT ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 271FA ON 23.2.2010 REQUIRING HIM TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE ON 11.3.2010 AND SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 FA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. PUR SUANT TO THIS NOTICE, A LETTER WAS SENT STATING THAT ANNUAL RETUR NS HAD ALREADY BEEN ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 10 SUBMITTED, BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS WAS FILED WITH DELAY OF 202 DAYS. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT FOUND JUSTIFIABLE AND THUS, IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR LATE FILING OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN, THE RESPONDENT IMPOSED A PENALT Y OF 20,200/- AT THE RATE OF 100 PER DAY, DURING WHICH THE DEFAULT C ONTINUED. 3. I DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAID ORDER IS FOUND TO BE JUST AND IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 FA OF INCOME TAX ACT. NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR PERSONAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INFRINGED. OTHERWISE TOO, THE PETITIONER HAS GOT EF FICACIOUS ALTERNATE LEGAL REMEDY TO CHALLENGE THE SAID ORDER, BUT THE S AME IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY HIM. THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO INVOKE THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THUS, THE WRI T PETITION BEING TOTALLY BEREFT OF ANY MERIT DESERVES TO BE DISMISSE D IN LIMINE. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE WRIT PETITION FAILS AND TH E SAME STANDS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 5. CONSEQUENT UPON THE DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION, THE STAY APPLICATION, FILED THEREWITH, DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THAT ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, DUE DATE FOR FILING THE R ETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 HAS BEEN STATED IN THE ORDER OF DIT ( CIB) AS 30.11.2005 AND THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 24.05.2006 WHICH WAS LA TE BY 174 DAYS. AT THE OUTSET, WHEN THE FIRST RETURN HAS BEEN FILED ON 24.05.2006 PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 MAY BE LATE BY 174 DAYS, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PLEAD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY KNO WLEDGE OF THE LAW OR HE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. I N FACT, ACCORDING TO OUR VIEWS AND WITH GREAT RESPECT TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AND AS MENTIONED IN OU R ORDER IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140(ASR)/2013 & OTHERS DATED 30.05.2013 (SU PRA), THE SERVING OF ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 11 THE NOTICE BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS NOT MAND ATORY. RATHER THE WORD USED IN SECTION 285BA(1) GIVES OPTION TO THE I NCOME TAX AUTHORITY TO SERVE THE NOTICE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE SERVED UPON. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE/FILER IS REQ UIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) AS PER STATUTE, THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY PLEADING THAT HE REQUIRES A NOTICE OR SHOW CAUSE NO TICE OR REMINDER TO FILE SUCH RETURNS. NO REASONABLE CAUSE EVEN HAS BEEN EST ABLISHED BEFORE THE DIT(CIB), LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US UNDER SECTIO N 273B OF THE ACT. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR LATE FILING OF THE AIR HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT SATIS FACTORY AND NOT JUSTIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJ ASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DCIT (CIB) (SUPR A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THE YEARS. THOUGH, WE ARE AWARE OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS CUT AND PASTE ORDER IN ALL THE YEARS BUT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID SINCE IN SUBSTANCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE A.O. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DCIT (CIB) (SUPRA). ACCORDIN GLY, WE ALSO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING S HEREINABOVE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS WELL AS IN ALL OTHER YEARS I.E. F INANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2 009-10 I.E. OUR ORDER ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 12 HEREINABOVE IS IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE IM PUGNED YEARS. THUS, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 706 TO 710( ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITA NOS. 706 TO 710(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31ST DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31ST DECEMBER, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BATHINDA. 2. THE DIT (CIB), CHANDIGHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BHATINDA. 4. THE CIT, BHATINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR