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

ITA/141/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Sub Registrar of Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, who appealed against the penalty imposed for non-compliance with the statutory obligation to furnish an Annual Information Return (AIR) under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the delay was due to lack of infrastructure and software, which was not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalty, leading to this appeal. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appeal, referencing a similar case decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795350 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The 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: MUNISH JHANDI
• Keywords: Annual Information Return; Natural Justice; Non compliance; Penalty; Statutory obligation
• Section: 273B; 260A; 275(1)(c); 271FA; 285BA(1)(d); 114E(1)(2)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.141 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.141 of 2014(O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2014 The Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda ……Appellant Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Munish Jhandi, Advocate for Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.141 and 142 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts and the substantial questions of law involved in both the appeals are similar, which however are being extracted from ITA No.141 of 2014. 2. ITA No.141 of 2014 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.247(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.141 of 2014 (O&M) 2 appreciate that in the light of bonafides and the compelling reasons pursuant whereto the requisite information could not be furnished by the appellant within the stipulated time period therein constituted a reasonable cause and therefore in light of section 273B no penalty under section 271FA for the said non compliance was liable to be imposed? 2. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the lower authorities had most arbitrarily brushed aside the bonafides and the compelling reasons which had prompted and led to delay in filing of the requisite information by the appellant within the stipulated time period? 3. 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? 4. 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? 5. 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 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 GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.141 of 2014 (O&M) 3 involved as narrated in ITA No.141 of 2014 may be noticed. The appellant is a Sub Registrar working in the moffusil area of District Bathinda. Under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Act read with Rule 114E(1)(2) 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 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 – Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul, 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 Sub Registrar. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant under section 271FA of the Act on 23.8.2010, 9.9.2010, 13.12.2010, 22.12.2010 and 17.1.2011 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 and vide reply dated 29.9.2010 and 13.1.2011 submitted that the requisite information had already been filed by him. However, the delay was occurred was due to lack of infrastructure and software with the appellant for compiling the requisite 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 ` 30,400/- i.e. at the rate of ` 100/- per day. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.141 of 2014 (O&M) 4 (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide order dated 31.1.2013, Annexure A.2. 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 head learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. The matter is no longer res integra. Vide order dated 21.7.2014, we have decided ITA No.344 of 2013 (The Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh), and connected appeals against the appellant. 6. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed in the same terms. Since the appeals have been dismissed on merits, no order is being passed on the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which is left open. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge August 11, 2014 (Fateh Deep Singh) Judge ‘gs’ GURBAX SINGH 2014.09.12 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "