The Sub Registrar/ Jt.Sub Registrar, V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 907/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1296 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2009-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR / VS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX( CIB), JT. SUB REGISTRAR, SCO 98-100, 3 RD FLOOR, KANDAGHAT, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH. DSITT.SOLAN PAN/TAN NO. PTLT10280E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. NEERAJ SHARMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. HEMANT GUPTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09. 2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(A), SHIMLA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] AGITA TING AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10ARE IDENTIC AL, THEREFORE, THESE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 2 3. EARLIER, THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.9.2016 BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HONBLE HIMACH AL PRADESH HIGH COURT, SHIMLA. THE HON'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH CO URT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.9.2016 AND DIRECTED THIS T RIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT IS SUB-REGISTRAR, KANDAGHAT H.P. IT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED FINANCIA L TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT THIRTY LAKH RUPEES OR MORE BY ANY PERSON AS PROVIDED IN ITEM NO 6 OF THE TABLE IN RULE 114E OF THE I. T. RULES, 1962, BY IT DURING THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE AIR WAS 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO FURNISH THE AIR, PENALTY IS LIABLE U/S 2 71FA OF THE ACT. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THAT THE FILER HAS FILED THE AIR ON 08/11/2010 MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE , FOR ALL THE FINANCIAL YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE DELAY IN FILING O F THE AIR IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TABULATED AS U NDER: SR. NOS. FINANCIAL YEAR DUE DATE FOR FILING AIR FILED ON DELAY (IN DAYS) 1 2005-06 31/08/2006 08/11/2010 1529 ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 3 2 2006-07 31/08/2007 08/11/2010 1164 3 2007-08 31/08/2008 08/11/2010 799 4 2008-09 31/08/2009 . 08/11/2010 434 THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, THE DIT (CIB) IN THIS CAS E, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE R EASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE ALR. THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT FILED BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE A CCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED US 271FA AT RS. 1,52,900/- RS. 1,16,400/-, RS. 79,900 & RS. 43,400/- FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEARS 2005-06, 06-07, 07-08 & 08-09 RESPECTIVELY COMPUTED @ RS. 100 PER DAY OF DEFAULT AS TABULATED ABOVE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE TH E FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- '1. THAT THE APPELLANT I.E. SUB REGISTRAR, HAS MADE EVERY POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION S OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, REGARDING SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CLERK AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE VARIO US WORKS IN THE OFFICE OF THE APPELLANT AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF OFFICE RECORDS AND COMPLIANCES OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS ETC., AS SUCH THE DELAY WAS CAUSED IN SCRUTINY OF THE DATA REQUIRED FOR FURNISH ING THE AFORESAID ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN AS THE RECO RD WAS MAINTAINED MANUALLY BY THE SAID OFFICE AND THER E VI/AS ONLY ONE CLERK AVAILABLE TO DISPOSE OF ROUTINE WORK OF THE OFFICE AND TO SCRUTINIZE DATA FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING THE AFORESAID AIR. 2 THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IN FURNISHING THE ANNUAL ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 4 INFORMATION RETURNS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, NEITHER TH ERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT OF RECORDS OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL DATA WHICH WAS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE O F FURNISHING AFORESAID AIR, NOR THERE WAS ANY MALA FI DE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING FURNISHING OF THE AFORESAID RETURN AND THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BECAUSE O F THE REASON STATED ABOVE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REPLYING RESPONDENT WAS BONA FIDE AND FOR THE SAME REASON THE AFORESAID RETURNS WORE FURNISHED, AS SUCH THE REPLYING RESPONDENT HAS NOT CONTRAVENED / THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER / AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA DESPITE OF THIS FACT THAT AS PER SECTION 285BA(5) WHERE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN UNDER SUB SECTION (1) HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN/INFORMATION WITHIN A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE SHALL FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION SIXTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE SHAL L FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TI ME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE BUT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT NOR ANY NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. 4 THAT THE PRESENT APPELLANT HAS JOINED AS TEHSIL DAR KANDAGHAT (SUB- REGISTRAR) ONLY IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2009, AND IT WAS NOT BROUGHT IN THE KNOWLED GE OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE AIR IN RESPECT OF THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS WERE NOT FILED 'AND AS SOON AS IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT I.E. ON 23/09/2010, FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FROM DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH WAS RECEIVED (MATTER CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDERSIGNED), THE SAME WAS DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 5 WERE FILED, (WELL BEFORE A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS.) 5 THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 FA DESPITE OF THIS FACT T HAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT WITHIN THE PREVIEW OF LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED IN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT OF MEND / ALTER / ADDITION / DELETION ANY GROUND IN SUPPORT O F HIS CLAIM 6. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ISSUED ADVISORY LETTERS DATED 16.9.2008, 29.4.2009 AND 18.6.2009 REQUESTING HIM TO FURNISH THE AIR IN TIME. THE L D. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT WAS MADE AWA RE OF THE PROVISIONS AND REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITY CAST ON HIM AS EARLY AS ON 16/9/2008 WHEREAS THE RETURNS WERE FILED ONLY ON 8/11/2010. THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE CLERK, MANUAL SCRUTINY OF REGISTER REQ UIRED TIME AND ALSO THE DEFAULT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL DID NOT HO LD MUCH WEIGHT. HE, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT, IN FACT, THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD ALREADY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE APPELLAN T WAS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STAT UTORY OBLIGATION IN SPITE OF SEVERAL ADVISORIES REFERRED SUPRA. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREAFTER RELYING UPON THE UPON THE DECISI ON OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 AND FURTHER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 6 SUB-REGISTRAR, SOLAN VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CI B) CHANDIGARH REPORTED IN (2014) 51 TAXAM.COM 19 (P&H) CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, HE RESTRICTED THE PENALTY BY DIRECTING THAT T HE PERIOD OF DELAY FOR COMPUTING PENALTY IMPOSABLE IN EACH OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF FIRST ADVISORY I.E. 16.9.2008 IN THIS CASE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HA S COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, REQUIRING THE CONCERNED PERSON TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED, FAILURE TO SO, INVITES PENALTY U/S 271FA OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE I.E. SUB-REGISTRAR, KANDAGHAT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNI SH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION O F PURCHASE AND SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 3 0 LACS OR MORE. THE SAID INFORMATION IS BEING USED BY THE INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES TO UNEARTH THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE CONCERNED PE RSONS WHO HAVE ENTERED HIGH MONETARY VALUE SALE TRANSACTIONS OF IM MOVABLE PROPERTY. THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE REQUIRE D AIR INFORMATION IS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS BUT IT RESULTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF NON-DETECTION OF THE INCO ME OF THE CERTAIN PERSON WHOSE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE SCRUTINIZED C ONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 7 HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY MADE BY THEM. TH E SUB REGISTRAR IN THIS CASE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS REMAINED NEGLIGENT. DESPITE ISSUED ADVISORIES MANY A TIMES, THE APPELLANT DID N OT BOTHER TO FILE THE STATUTORY INFORMATION IN TIME WITH THE COMPETEN T AUTHORITY. SUCH AS OMISSION / DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISION S HAS CONSEQUENCES OF REVENUE LOSS TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER , HOWEVER, TAKING THE LENIENT VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE COMPUTATION OF PENALTY FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF FIRST ADVISORY T O THE APPELLANT. ANY DELAY BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF FIRST ADVISORY HAS BEE N CONDONED BY THE CIT(A) AND NO PENALTY RELATING TO THAT PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FIRST ADVISORY HAS BEEN LEVIED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AT ITS OWN WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ON TI ME. IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY I N RELATION TO THE PERIOD AFTER THE ISSUE OF FIRST ADVISORY REQUESTIN G THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AS PER STATUTORY PROV ISIONS. IT IS NOT A CASE OF INADVERTENT OMISSION RATHER IT IS A CASE OF BLATANT NEGLIGENCE AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE OFF ICERS OF THE APPELLANT DEPARTMENT, HENCE, WE DONT FIND ANY REAS ON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN THESE APPEALS. ITA NOS. 906 TO 908/CHD/2016 8. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 906 TO 908/CHD/2016 RESPECTIVELY ARE SIMILAR, OUR FINDINGS ARRIVED AT ABOVE WILL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THE SE APPEALS ALSO. ITA NO. 905 TO 908/CHD/2016- SUB REGISTRAR / JOINT REGISTRAR, SOLAN 8 THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT A ND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.09.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR