SUB REGISTRAT MUKTSAR vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB)

ITA/151/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109277201415 September 2014Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Sub-Registrar of Muktsar, Punjab, was statutorily obligated under Section 285BA(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to furnish an Annual Information Report (AIR) concerning property sale deeds exceeding ₹30 lacs. The appellant failed to furnish the AIR within the prescribed period for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Consequently, the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh, imposed a penalty of ₹100 per day for the delayed furnishing. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal for assessment year 2006-07. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's further appeal. The assessee then filed this appeal before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. The Court noted that similar appeals filed against the same Tribunal order had been decided by the High Court itself on 21.7.2014, dismissing those appeals. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 271FA in the absence of mens rea? (Question of law) 2. Whether the quantum of penalty imposed is justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether findings of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to record? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that penalty under Section 271FA is not leviable in the absence of mens rea. They also contended that the quantum of penalty was unjustified and that the Tribunal's findings were perverse. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 285BA,Section 271FA,Section 114E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 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 sect

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 285BA

All 109 judgments and leading authorities on Section 285BA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →