TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction is registered or recorded Penalty order dated 22.12.2010 has been served on the assessee is not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31.01.2011 before the ld. CIT(A), Bathinda. The Ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 09.01.2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. 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 ld. counsel for the assesse is rejected that no notice u/s 285BA(5) has been issued/served upon the assessee even in remand proceedings when all notices were confronted. Therefore, the reliance placed by the ld. 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. As regards the reasonable cause we may refer that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as per our findings h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub Registrar, Malout 2006-07 to 2009-10 -do- 31.01.2013 33 to 37 242 to 246(Asr)2013 Sub Registrar, Talwandi 2005-06 to 2009-10 -do- -do- 38 39 247 248(Asr)/2013 Sub Registrar, Rampura Phul 2005-06 2006-07 -do- -do- 2. In all the cases, different assessees have taken identical grounds of appeal. The grounds raised in ITA No.137(Asr)2013, which are identical in all other appeals are reproduced hereunder: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the penalty u/s 271FA. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in upholding the penalty u/s 271FA while rejecting the explanation filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings that the assessee had a reasonable cause for failure to file AIR within time and that the case of the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 273B. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in upholding the penalty u/s 271FA while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or more. The due date of filing the AIR is the 31st August immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. In the event if failure to furnish the AIR, penalty is leviable u/s 271FA which is reproduced as under:- 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 that 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. As per the records of this office, the Filer has filed the Annual Information Returns (AIRs) late, 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:- Sl. No. Financial year Due date for filing AIR Filed on Delay(in days) 1. 2004-05 30.11.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f AIR for all the financial years under consideration. Further perusal of record shows that notices for filing of AIRs for different financial years had been issued by this office on 20.11.2006, 4.4.2007,11.1.2008, 12.12.2008,21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 and on 12.03.2010, which also remained un-complied with. Therefore, the Filer has failed to file the AIRs in time without any valid/reasonable cause and any satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Filer has filed its AIRs late for the all the financial years i.e. F.Ys 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09. Hence, these facts make the Filer a habitual defaulter without any concern/respect for the law of the land. In these circumstances it becomes imperative that suitable penalty as per law is levied on the Filer. The perusal of record shows that though the information in the financial year 2004-05 was NIL, yet the Filer has filed its AIR with NSDL. Hence, taking a lenient view, penalty is not levied for the financial years 2004-05. In view of these facts and circumstances the Filer is held liable for penalty u/s 271FA of the Act, 1961 @ ₹ 100/- per day for default for the financial years u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the appellant is that he is posted in a Mofussil area having no dealing with the Income Tax Department except the filing of AIR, and did not have the help of a tax professional because of which he was not aware of the provisions of Section 285BA and as such could not file the AIR within the prescribed period. 3. The DIT(CIB), Chandigarh has given the finding in the penalty order that the attention of the appellant was drawn to its statutory obligation but even than the appellant continue to ignore, his statutory duty to file the AIR within the prescribed period. I find force in the contentions of the A/R of the appellant regarding the ignorance of the provisions of Section 285BA but once the advisory letters were issued to the appellant drawing his attention towards his statutory obligation of filing the AIR within prescribed time, the reasonable cause i.e. bonafide belief disappears and the appellant would not be entitled to any leniency under the provisions of the Act. The A/R of the appellant has been confronted with the first letter dated 20.011.2006 and any default on the part of the appellant after this date would be viewed as a conscious disregard of its statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service of the first notice In view of the findings of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on identical facts I hold that the appellant was covered by the plea of the reasonable cause upto 30.11.2006 because the first advisory letter issued on 20.11.2006 and sent through post and it must have been delivered to the appellant by the postal authority upto 30.11.2006. Hence, I direct the department to re-compute the penalty u/s 271FA by taking the period of default w.e.f. 01.12.2006 instead of 31.08.2006 on which he was liable to file the AIR, and charge the penalty upto the date on which the appellant filed the AIR with the department. 9. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate, at outset invited our attention to paper book page 4 which is a notice dated 20.11.2006 issued by the CIT(CIB), Chandigarh to the Sub Registrar, Bariwala. It was sent by registered post to the assessee. Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate, at the outset argued that the address mentioned in this letter is as under: The Jt. Sub Registrar, Bariwala, Bathinda 10. The Ld. counsel for the assesse, Mr. Arora, Advocate argued that Bariwala is not in Bathinda and this is the wrong mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing on behalf of the assessee argued that the assessee has never been served notice for filing the annual information return and when the notice was received the assessee filed the annual information return. Therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax (supra). 13. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate finally argued that the Registrars are not much educated and therefore, they do not have any knowledge of Income Tax Rules and it was for the first time they had to face Income tax law, which was not in their knowledge and prayed to cancel the penalty levied upon and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 14. On the other hand, Sh.R.L.Chhanalia, Addl. CIT(DR) argued at the outset that ignorance of law is not an excuse. He also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax (supra) and argued that the assessee has not shown in the present cases that there is any bona fide belief or there is an reasonable cause for non service of the notice u/s 285BA(5) of the Act. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, 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 Ld. counsel for the assessee has taken the shelter of section 285BA(5) of the Act, which is reproduced hereinabove that the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31.01.2011 before the ld. CIT(A), Bathinda. The Ld. CIT(A) s order dated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 09.01.2013 at the same address has also not been disputed by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. 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 ld. counsel for the assesse is rejected that no notice u/s 285BA(5) has been issued/served upon the assessee even in remand proceedings when all notices were confronted. Therefore, the reliance placed by the ld. 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 Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax (supra), the ld. CIT(A) has taken full cognizance of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 08.03.2006 97 days 2. 2005-06 31.08.2005 03.11.2010 1524 days 3. 2006-07 31.08.2007 03.11.2010 1159 days 4. 2007-08 31.08.2008 03.11.2010 794 days 5. 2008-09 31.08.2009 03.11.2009 429 days In this case, the CIT(CIB), has issued notices on 20.11.2006, 04.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 12.03.2010, which remained uncomplied with by the assessee. Since the facts in the present cases are identical to the facts in the cases decided by us hereinabove in ITA Nos. 137 to 140(Asr)/2013 except that one different and pertinent fact in the present appeal for the assessment year 2005-06. Rather the same is applicable for the assessment years in the present assessee s case i.e. Sub Registrar, Muktsar that due date of filing the AIR was 30.11.2005 and the assessee filed the return on 08.03.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
