THE SUB REGISTRAR, HAVELI NO. 4,PUNE vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1052/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 August 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on a prior decision of the Tribunal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune (ITA No.969/PUN/2016), which was decided on 24-04-2018. In that case, the Tribunal had observed that the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) had levied penalty under Section 271FA for non-furnishing of statement of financial transaction as envisaged under Section 285BA. The appellant had directly filed an appeal before the Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of filing a first appeal before the appropriate authority as prescribed under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed that appeal as non-maintainable. Applying the same principle to the present case, the ITAT Pune concluded that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable, and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed as such. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Sub Registrar, Haveli No.4, Pune, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, against an order dated 17-02-2016 passed by the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Pune. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15 and challenges the levy of penalty under Section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel referred to a previous ITAT decision in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune (ITA No.969/PUN/2016 for AY 2015-16) which was not admitted on identical facts, and also a Rajasthan High Court judgment on merits. The Revenue's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee had not exhausted the remedy of a first appeal before the appropriate appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed directly before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is maintainable when the assessee has not exhausted the remedy of a first appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and procedure, concerning the appellate hierarchy). Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel referred to a previous ITAT decision in a similar case (The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune) and a Rajasthan High Court judgment on merits, implying a challenge to the maintainability or the merits of the penalty. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel argued that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal because the assessee failed to exhaust the remedy available with the First Appellate authority. The Revenue relied on the said order of the Tribunal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271FA,Section 285BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Swati G. Kalbhor
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 16.08.2018Pronounced: 17.08.2018

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), Pune, dated 17-02-2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The merit related issue raised in the appeal relates to the levy of penalty order u/s.271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty is levied by the DIT (I&CI). This appeal is filed by the assessee directly before the Tribunal against the order passed by the DIT (I&CI), Pune.

3.

At the outset, on the jurisdictional issue, Ld. Counsel for the assessee finally brought our attention to the facts and submitted that, on identical facts, the Tribunal did not admit the other case of appeal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune in ITA

2 ITA No. 1052/PUN/2016 The Sub Registrar, Haveli No.4

No.969/PUN/2016 for the A.Y. 2015-16, decided on 24-04-2018. However, she also filed the copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sub-Registrar, Pali Vs. UOI reported in 258 CTR 446 (Rajasthan) and mentioned that the same relates to the merits of the penalty.

4.

Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that this appeal needs to be dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal as the assessee did not exhaust the remedy available with the First Appellate authority. However, Ld. DR relied on the said order of the Tribunal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune (supra).

5.

On hearing both the sides on this preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction, we find the same is now decided by virtue of decision of the Tribunal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune (supra) decided on 24-04-2018. For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the finding given by the Tribunal here as under :

“2. The Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) has levied penalty u/s.271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-furnishing of statement of financial transaction (AIR information) as envisaged u/s.285BA of the Act. The appellant has directly filed appeal before the Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of filing first appeal before appropriate authority as prescribed under the Act. Thus, the appeal is dismissed being non-maintainable before the Tribunal directly.”

Considering the same, we hold that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी डी डी. क�णाकरा राव डी (िवकास अव�थी िवकास अव�थी िवकास अव�थी क�णाकरा राव क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) क�णाकरा राव �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 17th August, 2018. Satish

3 ITA No. 1052/PUN/2016 The Sub Registrar, Haveli No.4

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब�च, 3. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 4. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy //

व�र� िनजी सिचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 271FA

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271FA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →