The Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda V. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA/344/2013

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by various Sub Registrars against the penalties imposed for failing to submit the Annual Information Return (AIR) as required under Section 285BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were based on the grounds that the returns were not filed within the prescribed time, and the appellants' claims of ignorance and infrastructural challenges were not accepted as valid reasons for the delays. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier dismissed the appeals, leading to the current appeals in the High Court. The court examined the statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act, the reasons for the delays provided by the appellants, and the applicability of penalties under Section 271FA.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817981 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited vs. CIT and another, Union of India and others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others, Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited vs. Director of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SOOD
• Keywords: Annual Information Return; Ignorance of law; Penalty; Reasonable cause; Statutory obligation
• Section: 273B; 260A; 275(1)(c); 271FA; 285BA(1)(d)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.344 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2014 The Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda ……Appellant Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.344 of 2013, 2, 4, 8, 9, 39 to 49 and 51 to 59 of 2014 as the Tribunal vide one consolidated order dated 30.5.2013 impugned in these appeals decided the same. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.344 of 2013. 2. ITA No.344 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the consolidated order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, “the Tribunal') in ITA No.229(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penalty imposed under section 271FA on the appellant who is a ‘Joint Sub Registrar’, specifically when the statutory obligation as regards furnishing of the ‘AIR’ information, as provided for GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 2 under Section 285BA(1)(d) is only cast upon the ‘Registrar’ or ’Sub Registrar’? 2. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the delay in furnishing the requisite AIR information by the appellant which was initially prompted by bonafide ignorance as regards the ‘Statutory obligation’ under section 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), which thereafter on appellant subsequently getting aware as regards the same, was further delayed due to ‘multiple reasons’ on the part of his office, i.e. poor infrastructure which was manned by negligible staff not savvy with computers, maintenance of voluminous records/information in Punjabi that had to be got translated in English, absolute absence of any professional guidance from the superiors or the departmental authorities of the State Government, outsourcing of the work of compiling the soft copies of the information, applying for TAN No. etc. which in itself suffered from administrative restrictions, strict procedures, approvals of superior authorities etc. as regards which the appellant had neither any say, nor any free hand, therefore in itself constituted a reasonable cause, pursuant whereto in the light of section 273B no penalty under section 271FA for the delay in furnishing the AIR information was liable to be imposed? 3. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that in the light of bonafide ignorance on the part of the appellant as regards the statutory obligation under section 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), the delay in furnishing of requisite information by the appellant who was working in a moffusil area with absolutely inadequate infrastructure, and by virtue of the very nature of his office had never been assessed to income tax and thus had no occasion of availing assistance of any Chartered Accountant or a Tax consultant, therefore in the light of section 273B was not liable GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 3 to be visited with any penalty under section 271FA of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act in the hands of the appellant on the basis of premature observations, findings and investigations? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penalty imposed by the respondent under section 271FA beyond the time limitation prescribed under section 275(1) (c) of the Act? 6. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice while disposing of the appeal of the appellant vide consolidated order dated 30.5.2013 passed with respect to 39 appeals pertaining to 10 different appellants, by solely referring to the facts involved in the case of :The Joint Sub Registrar Bariwala, District Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh (ITA No.137(Asr)/2013, and rather bypassing the facts and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in its case, specifically when the same as in comparison to the facts involved in the case relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the case of the appellant were differently placed?” 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in ITA No.344 of 2013 may be noticed. The appellant is a Joint Sub Registrar working in the moffusil area of District Bathinda. Under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Act read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules”), 'Registrar' or 'Sub Registrar' appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 was subjected to a statutory obligation of furnishing Annual Information Return (AIR) pertaining to purchase/sale deed exceeding an amount of ` 30 lacs so registered by him during a year. The said AIR was required to be furnished GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 4 by the Registrar or the Sub Registrar with the appropriate authority in prescribed Form 61A of the Rules wherein part of the information was to be furnished on computer readable media while remaining part of the information was to be delivered in paper form. The appellant – Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda who was working in a moffusil area of the district was not aware of any such statutory obligation by holding the office as that of Joint Sub Registrar. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant under section 271FA of the Act on 8.10.2010 and followed by reminder dated 15.11.2000 whereby he was called upon to explain as to why penalty under section 271FA of the Act be not imposed on him. The appellant put in appearance. On learning that AIR was to be e-filed, he immediately applied for TAN No. On 19.10.2010, on receipt of TAN No., the appellant uploaded the required information. Vide order dated 7.1.2011, Annexure A.1, after considering the matter, the respondent imposed penalty under section 271FA of the Act amounting to ` 1,50,900/- (i.e. ` 100/- per day for 1509 days from 1.9.2006 to 19.10.2010). The appeal filed by the appellant against the order was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide order dated 31.1.2013, Annexure A.2, whereby the penalty was to be recomputed by taking the period of default w.e.f 1.12.2006 instead of 31.8.2006 onwards. The appellant filed further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure, A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee had acted bonafide and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of Section GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 5 273B of the Act. A reference was made to judgment reported as Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited vs. CIT and another, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). In ITA No.344 of 2013, it was also urged that Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat could not have been penalized as the provision of Section 285BA of the Act uses the expression ‘Registrar’ or ‘Sub-Registrar’. In such circumstances, the levy of penalty was bad. Additionally, in ITA No.47 of 2014 (The Sub Registrar, Malout, District Muktsar vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh), it was contended that the requisite information was supplied manually and no notice under section 285BA(4) of the Act was issued that the information which was supplied was defective. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any notice issued under section 285BA(4) of the Act, the levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act was not called for. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. Section 285BA was inserted in the Act by Finance Act 2003 with effect from 1.4.2004. However, Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 substituted new provision in place of old provision with effect from 1.4.2005 in the following terms:- “285BA. (1) Any person, being— (a) an assessee; or (b) the prescribed person in the case of an office of Government; or (c) a local authority or other public body or association; or (d) the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908); or (e) the registering authority empowered to register motor vehicles under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988); or (f) the Post Master General as referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898); or (g) the Collector referred to in clause (c) of section 3 of the GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); or (h) the recognised stock exchange referred to in clause (f) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956); or (i) an officer of the Reserve Bank of India, constituted under section 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); or (j) a depository referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996), who is responsible for registering, or, maintaining books of account or other document containing a record of any specified financial transaction, under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an annual information return in respect of such specified financial transaction which is registered or recorded by him during any financial year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 and information relating to which is relevant and required for the purposes of this Act, to the prescribed income-tax authority or such other authority or agency as may be prescribed. (2) The annual information return referred to in sub-section (1) shall be furnished within the prescribed time after the end of such financial year, in such form and manner (including on a floppy, diskette, magnetic cartridge tape, CD-ROM or any computer readable media) as may be prescribed. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), “specified financial transaction” means any— (a) transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or right or interest in a property; or (b) transaction for rendering any service; or (c) transaction under a works contract; or (d) transaction by way of an investment made or an expendi- ture incurred; or (e) transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit, which may be prescribed. GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 7 Provided that the Board may prescribe different values for different transactions in respect of different persons having regard to the nature of such transaction : Provided further that the value or, as the case may be, the aggregate value of such transactions during a financial year so prescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (4) Where the prescribed income-tax authority considers that the annual information return furnished under sub-section (1) is defective, he may intimate the defect to the person who has furnished such return and give him an opportunity of rectifying the defect within a period of one month from the date of such intimation or within such further period which, on an application made in this behalf, the prescribed income- tax authority may, in his discretion, allow; and if the defect is not rectified within the said period of one month or, as the case may be, the further period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, such return shall be treated as an invalid return and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such person had failed to furnish the annual information return. (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 within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish the annual information return within the time specified in the notice.” 8. Sub section (1) provides that any person specified in clauses (a) to (j) therein who is responsible for registering or maintaining books of account or other documents containing a record of any specified financial transaction, under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 8 annual information report in respect of such specified financial transaction to the prescribed income tax authority or such other authority or agency as may be prescribed. The return is required to be furnished relating to transactions which have been registered or recorded on or after Ist April 2004. Under sub section (2), the annual information return shall be furnished in the prescribed format and manner and also within the prescribed time after the end of the financial year. Sub section (3) defines the “specified financial transaction” to mean any transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or right or interest in a property or transaction for rendering any service or transaction under a works contract or transaction by way of an investment made or expenditure incurred or a transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit as may be prescribed. It has also been provided that the Board may prescribe different monetary values of different transactions in respect of different persons. The said sub section further provides that the value or the aggregate value of such transaction during a financial year so prescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. By virtue of sub section (4), the defective annual information return can be rectified by the person furnishing it under sub section (1) to the prescribed income tax authority. An intimation of the defect and opportunity to remove the same shall be provided by the said authority. The period for removing the defect would be one month from the date of intimation or any further period which the prescribed income tax authority may allow. In the event of failure to cure the defect, such return shall be treated to be invalid and all consequences under the Act shall follow as if no such return had GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 9 been filed. According to sub section (5), where any person who is required to furnish an annual information return 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 within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice. 9. A notification has been issued on 1.12.2004 prescribing Rule 114E relating to furnishing of annual information return. The form and manner in which the annual information return shall be furnished has been prescribed in this rule. Clause (2) of the Table prescribes the persons who shall furnish annual information return. The nature of transactions is specified in corresponding entry of Clause (3) thereof. Under Rule 114E, such return shall be furnished in Form No.61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. It has also been provided that annual information return be furnished on or before 31st of August immediately following the financial year in which transaction is registered or recorded. 10. The Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 has inserted a new section 271FA providing for penalty for failure to furnish the annual information return. It reads thus:- “271FA. If a person who is required to furnish an annual information return, as required under sub-section (1) of section 285BA, fails to furnish such return within the time prescribed under that sub-section, the income-tax authority prescribed under the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues.” GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 10 The said section provides that where any person who is required to furnish the annual information return fails to furnish the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed income tax authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. However, under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no penalty under Section 271AA of the Act would be imposed where assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee had argued the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, District Bathinda as a lead case before the Tribunal and pleaded that all other cases are similar and identical. However, in the case of Sub Registrar, Muktsar, an additional plea was raised to substantiate reasonable cause within the ambit of Section 273B of the Act. Thus, we proceed to examine cases of Sub Registrar, Bariwala and Muktsar in addition to case of Sub Registrar, Sangat in which the main order is being written. 12. The findings in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala which were accepted to be identical to all other cases recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.3 read thus:- “15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. In the present case, the main argument of the learned counsel for the assessee was that the assessee was ignorant of law i.e. about section 285BA of the Act. He argued that the income tax authority has not served any notices on the assessee and when the notice was served, the assessee filed the annual information return (in short, AIR) and no penalty should be accordingly levied upon the assessee. In this regard, we are of the view on perusal of section 285BA of the Act, which was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 11 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 section 285BA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004 where any assessee who enters into any financial transaction, as may be prescribed, with any other person, shall furnish, within the prescribed time, an annual information return in such form and manner, as may be prescribed in respect of such financial transaction entered into by him during any previous year. Rule 114A to 114E prescribes such return to be furnished in Form No.61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. At item No.6 of the said rule, return shall be furnished on or before 31st August, immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. Section 285BA(5) is reproduced for the sake 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 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 within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish the annual information return within the time specified in the notice. 15.1 The learned counsel for the assessee has taken the shelter of section 285BA(5) of the Act which is reproduced hereinabove that, the income tax authority is 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 served upon. The word ‘may’ used in section 285BA(5) clearly indicates the option for the income tax authority. It is not obligatory on the income GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 12 tax authority to serve such notice. Therefore, interpretation has to be strictly construed. There is no ambiguity in the same. The courts cannot add or amend and by construction cannot make up the deficiencies in the Act. It is contrary to all rules of construction unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or having a doubtful meaning. We are not entitled to usurp legislative function disguise of interpretation. The courts are meant to interpret law, cannot legislate it. Our views find support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. 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 obligatory on the income tax authority. Therefore, arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, are rejected to this extent. 15.2 As regard 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 the learned counsel for the assessee in this respect. Reasonable presumption is made that this notice has also been served upon the assessee dated 20.11.2006 and which has not been complied with. As per remand report, as argued by the learned DR and also record of DIT(CIB) which has been verified by the learned counsel that various notices have been served i.e. on 20.11.2006, 4.4.2007, 11.1.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.5.2009, 20.1.2010 and 12.3.2010. All the said seven notices remained uncomplied with, at the last known address given by the assessee which is as under:- Sub Registrar Bariwala Muktsar 15.3. Penalty order dated 22.12.2010 has been served on the assessee is not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31.1.2011 before the learned CIT(A) Bathinda. The learned CIT(A)’s order dated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 9.1.2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the learned counsel GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 13 for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee that one notice dated 20.11.2006 having mentioned wrong district is part of the paper book cannot prove that the notice dated 20.11.2006 and other six notices as mentioned hereinabove have not been issued and served on the assessee. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is rejected that no notice under section 285BA(5) has been issued/serviced upon the assessee even in remand proceedings when all notices were confronted. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the decisions of various courts of law on service of notice cannot be made applicable in the present case and cannot help the assessee. 15.4 As regards the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited vs. Director of Income Tax (supra) [(2011) 338 ITR 167], the learned CIT(A) has taken full cognizance of the said decision and has directed the CIT(CIB) to re- compute the default w.e.f 1.12.2006 instead of 31.8.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 and thereafter in the following years has rightly 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 learned CIT(A) has taken cognizance in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited vs. Director of Income Tax (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. But at the same time, we may refer that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as per our findings hereinabove and also as per decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pattan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited (supra) and the Sub Registrar cannot be an exception to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove. It is settled law that ignorance of law is of no excuse, as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC).” 13. A perusal of the above findings shows that inspite of having GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 14 sent several letters to the appellant between the period from 20.11.2006 to 12.3.2010, the requisite information was not furnished by him within the stipulated period. The plea of ignorance of law has also been negatived by the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal being based on record, the same could not be held to be erroneous. 14. Further, the Tribunal on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the assessees had decided the appeals of Sub Registrar, Muktsar for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 in para 17 of the order. It was noticed that the facts in these appeals were also similar to facts in Sub Registrar, Bariwala with an additional fact that the Sub Registrar, Muktsar had filed the Annual Information Return for the assessment year 2005-06 on 8.3.2006 after a delay of 97 days which shows that the assessee was very much aware of the provisions of Section 285BA of the Act, whereas for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, it was filed on 3.11.2010. It was concluded that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in the absence of any satisfactory explanation having been furnished by him. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. 15. Still further, though appeals in the cases of Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda were not argued separately being identical on facts with the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the question whether there exists reasonable or sufficient cause in terms of Section 273B of the Act is a question of fact dependent upon appreciation of the material and the plea raised by the assessee. In the present case, the assessing authority on appreciation of material had concluded that the filer of the returns was habitual defaulter without any concern or respect for the law. The CIT(A) GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 15 on appeal by the assessee had upheld the aforesaid finding and which order was confirmed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee having accepted before the Tribunal that the facts being similar to the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below being based on record are affirmed. 16. Furthermore, in respect of proposed question No.6, perusal of order of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal had adjudicated 39 appeals by one consolidated order. Learned counsel for the assessees Shri P.N.Arora, advocate who was representing the appellant had categorically submitted before the Tribunal that the case of 'Sub Registrar' Bariwala, District Muktsar was being argued first and thereafter stated that the facts of all other appeals were identical and therefore, his submissions in that case may be applied in all other appeals as well. This fact is established from reading of following paras of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.5.2013:- “4. The learned counsel for the assessee Mr. P.N.Arora, advocate argued the appeals in the case of the Sub Registrar, Bariwala first and thereafter argued that since the facts in all other appeals are identical, his arguments shall be identical and be applied in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove.” “18. As regards other appeals in ITA No.135 and 136(Asr)/ 2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Doda, in ITA Nos.141 to 143 (Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lakhewali, in ITA Nos.144 to 148 (Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, in ITA Nos.229 to 232(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Sangat, in ITA Nos.233 to 237(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lambi and in ITA Nos.238 to 241(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Malout, in ITA Nos.242 to 246 (Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Talwandi and in ITA No.247 and 248(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul, the facts in the present appeals have been GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 16 argued by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora to be identical and also the learned DR has argued that the facts being identical as in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala in ITA No.137 to 140(Asr)2013 and after perusal of the records in the said appeals, we find that the facts in the said appeals are identical to the facts of the case of Sub Registrar Bariwala and Muktsar. Therefore, following the same we find no infirmity in the orders of the learned CIT(A). Our order will be identically applicable to the facts of the present cases before us in all the assessees of all the years. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessees in all the years are dismissed.” The plausible explanations in terms of Section 273B of the Act in the cases of Sub Registrar, Talwandi Saboo, Sub Registrar, Lambi, Sub Registrar, Malout, Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, Sub Registrar, Doda and Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul are also similar and therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271FA of the Act cannot be faulted. 17. The Joint Sub Registrar is also the prescribed authority for the sub-district in terms of sections 6 and 7 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of any factual foundation having been laid before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty on the Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, the said plea raised for the first time before the High Court would not be permissible. Equally, the plea of no notice having been issued under Section 285BA(4) of the Act in ITA No.47 of 2014 to Sub Registrar, Malout loses significance in the absence of such contention having been raised before the authorities below. Question No.5 also does not arise as no such argument regarding action being beyond limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act was ever raised before any of the authorities below. 18. Adverting to the judgment in Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 17 Limited's case (supra), the issue before the Apex Court was relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Supreme Court on appreciation of facts therein had concluded that the tax audit report does not suggest that there was any concealment of income. There was also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It was further noticed that the action of the assessee was bonafide and due to inadvertent error for which no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed. The factual matrix being different in the present appeals, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. 19. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. Since the appeals have been dismissed on merits, no order is being passed on the applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filing the appeals, which are left open. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge July 21, 2014 (Jaspal Singh) 'gs' Judge GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "