SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE,JAGDISHPUR vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 109/Pat./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16

The Sub Registrar, | Vs | Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Sub Registry Office, Jagdishpur, | Patna Bhojpur (APPELLANT) | (RESPONDENT) TAN No. PTNS02318B

Assessee by : None

Revenue by : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 15.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17.08.2016 of DIT (I&CI), Patna.

- 2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the penalty levied u/s 271FA of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). - 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the DIT(I&CI), Patna issued a notice dated 21.06.2016 to the Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Jagdishpur requiring him to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271FA of the Act should not be levied for failure to file the annual information report within the prescribed time. In response, the assessee, the SR, Jagdishpur filed written submission stating therein the delay of filing of AIR is as under:

"That the delay was due to technical error."

However, the DIT(I&CI) was not satisfied from the reply of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.3,600/-.

- 4. Now the assessee has filed the direct appeal. Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. The ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the ld. DIT(I&CI). - 5. We have considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the DIT(I&CI) directly to the ITAT and not to the CIT(Appeal). - 6. On a similar issue, various benches of the Tribunal has taken a consistent view that no direct appeal can be filed against the order of the DIT(I&CI). The Co-ordinate Bench at ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Officer, Kumarsain, Fatehgarh Sahib Vs DIT(CIB), Chandigarh in ITA Nos. 1184, 1185, 1186 & 1189/Chd/2010 vide order dated 22.02.2011 held as under: - "5. We have heard the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. First of all, we have to decide whether the appellant can file an appeal before the Tribunal directly without filing of appeal before the CIT(Appeals). In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that now the CBDT has clarified in F.No.279/M-31/2010-SO(ITJ) on this point. He also filed on record a copy of page No. 5 & 6 of the said Notification. We find that in the above Notification, the CBDT has clarified that u/s 246A(1)(q),

of the income-tax Act, the CIT(Appeals) has powers to dispose of any penalty levied u/s 271FA and that there is no legal bar on CIT(Appeals) passing an appeal order against penalty order passed by the DIT(CIB), who is equivalent to the rank of CIT(Appeals). It has also been mentioned in the above Circular that whether CIT(Appeals) and DIT(CIB) are equivalent in rank or not is an administrative issue and it has nothing to do with the fact that the CIT(Appeals) can hear an appeal filed against an order passed u/s 271FA of the Income Tax Act by Director of Income Tax (CIB).

Further it is clarified in the said Circular that u/s 246A(1)(q) o Income Tax Act, CIT(Appeals) has powers to hear an appeal filed against an order passed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

- 6. In view of the above clarification given by the CBDT, in our considered opinion, the appellant should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) before filing an appeal directly before this Tribunal. In view of this position, we are dismissing all the four appeals filed by the appellant." - 7. Similarly, the ITAT Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 292/Jodh/2012 for the assessment year 2011-12 in the case of Sub Registrar, Post Padampur, Sriganganagar Vs DIT(I&CI), Jaipur Rajasthan vide order dated 03.10.2012 held as under: - "2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noticed that a similar issue has been adjudicated upon by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Sub-Registrar, Sri Dungargarh Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Jaipur in ITA No. 560/JU/2009 relating to assessment year 2008-09 wherein vide order dated 3.5.2010, it has been held that no direct appeal lies before the ITAT in respect of order passed u/s 271FA of the Act and the relevant findings have been given in para 3 of the aforesaid order, which reads as under:-

- "3. In catena of cases, this Tribunal had entertained a view that no direct appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed u/s 271FA of the Act. For this reason, the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as announced in open court on 3.5.2010." - 2.4 So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 3.5.2010 of the ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in the case of Sub-Registrar, Sri Dungargarh Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Jaipur in ITA No. 560/JU/2009, this Direct appeal of the assessee filed in the ITAT is dismissed considering the same as not maintainable." - 8. So, respectfully following the aforesaid orders of the Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed considering the same as not maintainable. - 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16 /03/2018)

Sd/- Sd/- (Sudhanshu Srivastava) (N. K. Saini)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 16 /03/2018

\Subodh\

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2.Respondent - 3.CIT - 4.CIT(Appeals) - 5.DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR