TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub Registrar, Maur Mandi 2005-06 to 2009-10 -do- -do- 20 to 23 229 to 232(Asr)/2013 Sub Registrar, Sangat 2006-07 to 2009-10 do- 31.01.2013 24 to 28 233 to 237(Asr)/2013 Sub Registrar, Lambi 2005-06 to 2009-10 -do- -do- 29 to 32 238 to 241(Asr)/2013 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sactions of purchase or sale by any persons of immovable property valued at thirty lakh rupees 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 30.11.2005 24.11.2010 1819 day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile 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 @ Rs. 100/- per day for default for the financial years under consideration, which is calculated as under: Financial Period of default No. of days of Default Amount of penalty 2005-06 1.9.2006 to 24.11.2010 1545 days Rs. 1,54,500/- 2006-07 1.9.2007 to 24.11.2010 1180 days Rs. 1,18,800/- 2007-08 1.9.2008 to 25.11.2010 816 days Rs. 81,600/- 2008-09 1.9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters 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 statutory obligation and as such, in respect of the period subsequent thereto, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of section 273B of the Act. This view finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax (2011) 53 DTR (Guj.) 321 in which it has been held as under; " Penalty under s. 271FA - Delay in filing annual information return- Reasonable cause- Petitioner, a co-operative bank situated in a mofussil area, was exempt from income-tax under the provisions of s. 80P(2)(a)(i) upto asst. yr. 2006-07 and was not having the assistance of chartered accountants - In view of the said explanation of the petitioner it would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 of the address and therefore, this notice has not been served upon the assessee. Accordingly, he relied upon the decisions of various courts of law where the notice is not served on the assessee, then no view against the assessee can be taken for levy of penalty. He relied upon the decisions of various courts of law as under: i) Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. DIT(CIB) (2011) 338 ITR 167 (Guj.) ii) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Chhabra (2012) 250 CTR (P&H) 195 iii) Income Tax Officer vs. Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Prop. M/s. Bhulla Mal Parshotam Lal in ITA no.358(Ssr)/2006 relating to A.Y. 2001-02 dated 9th Jan, 2007 iv) Shri Raman Gupta Prop. M/s. Raman & Co. Jammu vs. Addl CIT Range-2, Jammu i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vied 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 the the assessee in all the cases having been served assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order, the ld. counsel cannot plead that no notice has been served on him. It was argued that the notice dated 20.11.2006 at PB-4 is available with the assessee which means that it has been served on the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has not shown with respect to the other notices whether they have been served upon him and nothing has been brought on record with reference to notices dated 04.04.2007, 11.01.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.05.2009, 20.01.2010 & 12.03.2010 whether they were not served upon the assessee. In the remand report also, DIT(CIB) has confirmed having issued notice in the remand repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-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 Tax Authority are 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 Tax Authority to serve such notice. Therefore, interpretation has to be strictly construed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued/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 decision and has directed the CIT(CIB) to recompute the default w.e.f. 01.12.2006 instead of 31.08.2006 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 Ld. CIT(A) has taken cognizance in the case of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. 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 Gujrat High Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling the AIR was 30.11.2005 and the assessee filed the return on 08.03.2006 which resulted in delay of 97 days which shows that the assessee was very much aware of the provisions of section 285BA of the Act. Filing of the return for the A.Y. 2005-06 (financial year 2004-05) on 08.03.2006 and thereafter filing the return for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2009-10 on 03.11.2010 clearly establishes that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and following our decision in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala in ITA Nos. 137 to 140(Asr)/2013 hereinabove and the facts being identical as mentioned hereinabove, shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present cases. We find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Accordingly, all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed.. 18. As regards other appeals in ITA No. 135 & 136(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Doda, in ITA Nos. 141 to 143(Asr)/3013 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, Sanga....