SUB-REGISTRAR,KOTKHAVDA vs. JDIT(I & CI), JAIPUR

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH 'B', JAIPUR

Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL;,oa Jh foØe fl ag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; d s le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM

> vk;dj vihy l a-@ITA No. 1385/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13

The Sub Registrar | cuke | The JDIT (I&CI) Kotkhadva, Jaipur | Vs. | Jaipur PAN/GIR No.: JPRS09715G LFkk;h ys[kk l a-@thvkbZvkj la-@ vihykFkhZ@Appellant | izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate jktLo dh vksj l s@ Revenue by : Smt. Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR

l quokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/02/2020

?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 18/02/2020

vkn s'k@ ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) -3, Jaipur dated 09-10-2019 arising from the penalty order passed u/s 272A(2)( c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds.

> ''1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. JDIT(I&CI) has erred in law and on facts on imposing the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereas as per the letter issued to Inspector General (Stamp & Registration) Kar Bhawan, Jaipur, Ajmer by the office of the ld. Addl.

Director of Income (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Jodhpur and Jaipur on dated 03-05-2013, the information under Code 401,402 u/s 133(6) for the F.Y. 2012-13 should be furnished before 31-03- 2014.

In consonance to this letter, our Head Office issued a Circular No. F-7(34)JAN/20139470 dated 29-05-2013 giving instruction to submit the information under under Code 401,402 u/s 133(6) for the F.Y. 2012-13 on before 31-03-2014 before the DI(I&CI).

That in compliance to the above notice, we have submitted this information under Code 401,402 on before 10-10-2013 through online and offline.

- 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider and appreciate that on 22-01-2014, a notice was issued to impose the levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Act, for failure to comply with notices and date was fixed on 03-02-2014. In this context, the appellant has already furnished such information 4-10-2013 and also given information on dated 10-10-2013, 4-12-2013 and 03-02-2014, 11-02-2014. The above information was filed and submitted in the specified time as 31-03- 2014. Therefore, no late fee can be imp osed on the assessee. - 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that on 27-04-2014 the ld. JDIT(I&CI) has made penalty order u/s 272A(2)(c) with amount of Rs. 10,900/- without considering our furnished information timely.'' - 2.1 The assessee organization is a State Govt. Department and Sub-Registrar, Kotkhawada, Distt. Jaipur was asked to furnish the information u/s 133(6) of the Act in the Excel format either in CD or in DVD vide letter dated 05-06-2013. The AO subsequently initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)( c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act on 22-01-2014 and consequently the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 10,900/- while passing the order dated 21-05-2014. The assessee challenged the said levy of

ITA No.1385/JP/2019

The Sub Registrar, Kotkhavda vs J DIT,(I&CI), Jaipur

penalty before the ld. CIT(A). However, nobody appeared before the ld. CIT(A) when assessee's appeal was called for hearing and consequently

the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by impugned ex-parte order.

- 2.2 Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has duly complied with the notice issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act and furnished the requisite information. He further submitted that the AO called for the information on or before 31-03-2014 whereas the assessee replied the notice well within time vide letters dated 5-08-2013 and 4-12- 2013. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that once the assessee has duly complied with the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act then the question of default does not arise. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO is not justified. - 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the AO has given the finding that despite repeated notices u/s 133(6) of the Act dated 5-06-2013 and 22-01-2014 the assessee filed to furnish the requisite information and consequently there is a non-compliance of the said notices. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence before the AO. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 272A(2)( c) of the Act is justified.

2.4 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant materials available on record. The AO in the penalty order passed u/s 272A(2)( c) of the Act has alleged the non-compliance of the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act dated 5-06-2013 and 22-01-2014. We further note that the assessee in the paper book at pages 11 and 12 has filed the copies of the reply filed by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act. In both these letters, the assessee has specifically mentioned about the information of the transactions of Rs. 5.00 lacs or more. Vide letter dated 4th Dec. 2013, the assessee has again sent the information in CD and Print and duly replied to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act issued by the AO. Since these documents were not produced before the ld. CIT(A) and nobody appeared before the ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing of appeal, therefore, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of documentary evidences. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has produced the relevant documents in support of its explanation that the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act were duly complied with by the assessee then the matter is required to be considered afresh by the AO taking into consideration the evidences and letters sent by the assessee alongwith information. Needless to say that the assessee be given appropriate opportunity of hearing of appeal before passing the fresh order. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes

3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 18 /02/2020.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ foØe fl ag ;kno ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur

fnukad@Dated:- 18/02/ 2020

\*Mishra

vkn s'k dh izfrfyfi vxz sf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

- 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The Sub Registrar, Kotkhadva, Jaipur - 2. i zR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The JDIT (I&CI), Jaipur - 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy ) @ CIT(A), - 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, - 5. foHkkxh; i zfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur - 6. xkM Z Qkb Zy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1385/JP/2019)

vkn s'kku qlkj@ By order,

lgk;d i athdkj@ Assistant. Registrar