Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Sub-Registrar, Barnagar vs Assessee on 17 August, 2011
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.533 & 534/Ind/2010
A.Y. - 2009-10
Sub-Registrar, Nagda
PAN - BPLOO 0576 C
Sub-Registrar, Barnagar
PAN - BPLOO 0780 D ... Appellants
Vs
DIT (CIB), Bhopal ... Respondent
Appellant by : Shri Arvind Mantri, CA
Respondent by : Shri Arun Dewan, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 17.8.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 17.8.2011
O R D E R
PER JOGINDER SINGH Both these appeals are by the assessees against the different orders dated 10.5.2010 of Director of Income Tax (CIB), Bhopal on the ground that on the facts and in the 2 circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(CIB) erred in imposing penalty u/s 271FA of Rs.23,900/- & Rs.1,700/-, respectively, for non-filing of Annual Information Return by the appellants. Before levying penalty the ld. CIT(CIB) was informed about the filing of the Annual Information Return by the assessees. The assessee filed application for adjournment on the plea that the documents, which required for pleading the cases, were not complete. We find that the notice of hearing was received by the assessees on 20.7.2011, consequently, there was enough time with the assessees to acquire the documents, if any, therefore, we do not find any merit in this application, consequently, the adjournment petitions are rejected.
2. During hearing of the appeal, we have heard Shri Arvind Mantri, Ld. Counsel for assessee and Shri Arun Dewan, ld. Sr. DR. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessees is that at the relevant time, the Sub-Registrars, Nagda & Barnagar, who were required to furnish the Annual Information for FY 2008-09 were not available. The Bench asked the ld. AR whether he is ready to make the statement at Bar. The Ld. 3 Counsel for assessees replied in affirmative. In view of this assertion, we take the statement to be correct and proceed with the appeals on the basis of material available on record. However, the ld. Sr. DR Shri Arun Dewan strongly defended the imposition of penalty.
3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. Brief facts are that annual information return was required to be furnished under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 285 BA of the act or on before 31st August, immediately following the FY in which the transactions were registered or recorded. The assessees Sub-Registrars, Nagda & Barnagar, respectively, were required to furnish the annual information on or before 31.8.2009. However, no such information was filed by the assessees. Notice u/s 285 BA (5) was issued to the assessees requiring to file the information in the manner prescribed in the Act by 26.10.2009. However, in the absence of filing of return/information up to 26.10.2009, notice u/s 271FA r.w.s. 274 dated 11.11.2009 was issued to the 4 respective assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271FA should not be imposed. As per the Revenue, none attended. However, later on, on 26.2.2010, the clerk of the office of the assessee attended and submitted the reply dated 25.11.2009, in manual form, along with list of transactions in respect of immovable properties valuing Rs.5 lacs and above, registered with the office of the assessee. The clerk was directed to file the information as required in the manner prescribed. On 11.3.2010, the Sub-Registrar personally attended but could not produce the proof of filing of AIR. Penalty u/s 271FA to the tune of Rs.23,900/- & Rs.1,700/-, respectively, was imposed which is under challenged.
4. However, in view of the statement at Bar, that the Sub-Registrar were not available at the relevant time, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the required information within stipulated period. It is pertinent to mention here that later on, the assessees duly appeared before the department, consequently, we are of the view that a lenient view is required. Even otherwise, the clerk of the assessee duly 5 appeared and filed the information on manual form. It is not the case that no compliance was made. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Skyline Auto Products (P) Ltd. (271 ITR
335)/142 Taxman 558 (MP) wherein it was held that when mistake is bona fide, no penalty should be imposed. In view of these facts, the penalty, so imposed, is deleted in case of both the assessees.
Finally, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 17th August, 2011.
(R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.8.2011
Copy to: Appellant, Respondent, CIT, CIT(A), DR, Guard File !vyas!