The Sub Registrar, Muktsar, Punjab V. Director of Income Tax (CIB)

ITA/151/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Sub Registrar of Muktsar, Punjab, who appealed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, which had dismissed his appeal regarding penalties imposed for the late filing of Annual Information Reports (AIR) under Section 285BA(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were imposed by the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh, at a rate of `100 per day for each delayed filing over several financial years. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure to meet statutory obligations under the Act and the Rules, specifically concerning the timely submission of AIRs for transactions exceeding `30 lacs. The High Court dismissed the appeal, referencing a similar case with a consolidated decision against the appellants.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795314 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Registration Act, 1908, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK GUPTA
• Keywords: Annual Information Report; Income Tax; Mens Rea; Penalty; Perverse findings; Sub-registrar
• Section: 260A; 114E; 271FA; 285BA(1)(d)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.9.2014 The Sub Registrar, Muktsar, Punjab ……Appellant Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB) …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.5 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (in short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.130-134(ASR)/ 2013 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 271FA in the absence of mens rea? ii)Whether the quantum of penalty imposed is justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case? iii)Whether findings of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to record? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Under section 285BA(1) GURBAX SINGH 2014.10.07 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) 2 (d) of the Act read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules”), a Registrar or Sub Registrar appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 was subjected to a statutory obligation of furnishing Annual Information Report (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 by the Registrar or the Sub Registrar with the appropriate authority in prescribed Form 61A of the Rules. The appellant being Sub Registrar of Muktsar was required to file AIR with the competent authority but he failed to furnish required information well within the prescribed period. The appellant furnished returns of various years. The Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh on account of delayed furnishing of return imposed a penalty of ` 100/- per day in respect of all the financial years vide order dated 22.12.2010, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed separate appeals for each assessment year before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. Vide order dated 14.12.2012, Annexure A.3, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.5, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. The Tribunal had decided 39 appeals vide one consolidated order dated 30.5.2013. The present appeal was also one of the cases decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.5.2013. Similar appeals filed against the said order bearing ITA No.344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and GURBAX SINGH 2014.10.07 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) 3 connected cases had been decided by this Court against the appellants and dismissed on 21.7.2014. 5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal stands dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is left open. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge September 15, 2014 (Fateh Deep Singh) 'gs' Judge GURBAX SINGH 2014.10.07 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "