SUB REGISTRAR,KULLU vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'A' CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 824 to 828/Chd/2017

Assessment Year: 2004-05 to 2008-09

Sub Registrar Vs. Director of Income Tax (I&CI)

Kullu Chandigarh

PAN No. PTLT12528F

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Dhiman Respondent By : Sh. Manjit Singh

Date of hearing : 30/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2018

ORDER

PER BENCH.

The appeals have been delayed by 15 days. Vide letter dt. 19/05/2017, it has been submitted by the assessee that the delay of two weeks was due to the fact that the assessee is a subordinate office below the District level and obtaining the administrative permission from the District Registrar cum District Magistrate and subsequent engagement of legal expert / consultant to file the appeal. Further the assessee submitted that the assessee is a public dealing office and daily deals with constant flow of public for registration and obtaining certificates which lead to delay and pleaded for condonation. Owing to the facts of the case and the reasons given by the assessee the delay of 15 days is hereby condoned.

Since the issues raised in all the above appeals are common therefore they are being disposed off by a common order for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA No. 824/Chd/2017 as a lead case in which the assessee has raised the following grounds:

- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I as well as Ld. Director of Income Tax (I&CI) has levied the penalty of Rs. 1,87,000/-U/s250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on merely inferences, presumption, surmises, conjectures. Therefore, penalty be withdrawn. - 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I as well as Ld. Director of Income Tax, (I&CI) Chandigarh have erred while passing the order date 30.01-2017 and 27-03-2017 respectively. - 3. That the Ld. Director of Income Tax, (I&CI) Chandigarh brushed aside the submissions made by the appellant as it was submitted before the Ld. Director that since Sub Registrar Kullu acts only on behalf of the Government department and there is a procedure only to file Annual Income Tax Return before the Income Tax Department and no cash of public exchequer is involved in filing AIR before the Income Tax Department. It is further submitted that when the matter came in to the notice of worthy Deputy Commissioner Kullu he immediately issued show cause notice to the then Sub Registrar as well as to the then Registration Clerk. It is further submitted that due to exigency and heavy work in the office the matter could not be attended timely for which the Government can not be held liable by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,87,000/-. As it would be unnecessary burden on public exchequer. Hence, same is able to be withdrawn in the interest of justice. - 4. That the first appellant authority has not appreciated the facts of the case in its right perspective and has wrongly and illegally dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. - 5. That the first appellant authority while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant has not granted due opportunity of being heard to the appellant and this act on the part of first appellant authority is against the principles of natural justice as such the impugned order dated 30-01-2017 and the recovery notice dated 27-03-2017 are not legally tenable and the same be set-aside in the interest of justice. - 6. That during pendency of this appeal the recovery notice dated 27-03-2017 may kindly be also stayed till the final disposal of this appeal and delay in filling the appeal if any be also condoned in the interest of justice. - 3. Brief facts of the case are that owing to the delay in filing Annual Information Return (AIR) in respect of purchase and sale by any person of immovable property valued at Rs. 30 Lacs. A show cause notice for the financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 was issued by office of the DIT (CIB) on 14/09/2010 & 26/10/2010 asking the Sub-Registrar to show cause as to why penalty under section 271FA of the Act should not be imposed upon it for failure to furnish the AIRs in time, and the reply was sought by 04/11/2010.

On 04/11/2010 Shri. B. R. Joshi, Naib Tehsildar from O/o the Sub Registrar, Kullu, Distt. Kullu attended and fled information which is supposed to be AIRs vide his office letter no. 225/RC dt. 30/09/2010, for the F.Y 2004-05 to 2008-09. He was asked to file AIRs for the F.Y. 2004-05 to 2008-09 and submit proof of the same alongwith written reply for non filing of the AIRs on 10/12/2010 by the DIT(CIB). On the given date Shri. B. R. Joshi Naib Tehsildar requested for adjournment and case was adjourned to 11/01/2010.

On 11/01/2011 neither anybody attended the office nor any reply submitted. It was held that the filer has nothing to say regarding non/late filing of AIRs. The information submitted vide letter dt. 30/09/2010 is relates to F.Y. 2004-05 to 2008- 09 except 2006-07. Treating the information as AIRs penalty under section 271 FA of the I.T. Act, 1961 is calculated up to the date of receipt of the information i.e. 05/10/2010 and for the F.Y. 2006-07, penalty is calculated up to the date of order as the filer has failed to furnish AIRs either electronically or manually. As per reply dated 30/09/2010 the filer submitted as under:

" With reference to your office letter no. DDIT/CIB/CHD/2010-11 /2818 dated 14/09/2010 on the above cited subject, due to heavy quantum of work, the requisite information/return could not be furnished and earlier, delay is highly regretted…."

Since the reply filed by the Sub Registrar in response to the show cause notice, was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, explanation filed by the Filer was found unacceptable by the DIT(CIB) and levied penalty of Rs. 6,24,000/- under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

- 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A)-1 Amritsar at Palampur. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 30/01/2017 confirmed the penalty levied. - 5. Before us, the assessee has taken at ground no. 5 that assessee has not granted due opportunity of being heard and on the part of the first appellate

authority the action is against the principles of natural justice and requested that

due opportunity may be given. The Revenue has objected for giving another

opportunity to the assessee.

However keeping in view all the facts and circumstances we feel that interest of

justice would be met if the assessee is given another opportunity of being heard

by the Ld. CIT(A).

to the assessee and pass a speaking order on jurisdiction vested to the Ld. CIT(A)

as per Section 246A with reference to section 271FA and decide the case on

merits. The assessee is also directed to comply to the directions of the Ld. CIT(A)

with utmost care and discipline.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 2/02/2018

Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR