Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
The Manager, , Gurdaspur vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos.367 to 370(Asr)/2010
Financial years:2004-05,2005-06,2007-08 & 2008-09
PAN :AAAT0711A
The Manager, Vs. Director of Income-tax (CIB),
The Gurdaspur Central Co-op Chandigarh.
Bank Ltd. Gurdasapur
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Sh. J.S. Bhasin, Adv.
Respondent by: Sh. Tarsem Lal
ORDER
Per H.L. Karwa, VP These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh), dated 25.06.2010, relating to financial years, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-
09.
2. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.65,900/-, Rs.38,500/-, Rs.46,300/-, and Rs.9,800/- for delayed filing of AIR for the financial years, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09. The issue involved in these appeals is common and, therefore, we will decide the same by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts noted by the Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh, are as under:
2"Order u/s 271FA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Manager, the Gurdaspur Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Gurdaspur, (the Filer) was required to file Annual Information Returns for the Financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 & 2008-09 as under:-
Financial year Due Date for
filing of AIR
2004-05 30.11.2005
2005-06 31.08.2006
2006-07 31.08.2007
2007-08 31.08.2008
2008-09 31.08.2009
2. Section 285BA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requires certain specified persons (filers) to file an Annual Information Return (AIR) in respect of specified financial transactions registered or recorded by him during the financial year. The nature of the transactions and the threshold value for information to be submitted in the AIR are prescribed in the Table (Item No.6) in Rule 116E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The form in which the return is required to be filed is Form No. 61A. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi had authorized M/s. National Securities Depositories Ltd. (NSDL) as the agency authorized to receive AIRs on the behalf of the Commissioner of Income tax (Central Information Branch). The filer can also furnish the AIR with the Facilitation Centres of NSDL, located in different parts of the country.
3. Item No. 6 of the Table in Rule 114E specifies that the Registrar or Sub- registrar appointed u/s 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 is required to file AIR in respect of transactions of purchase or sale by any person of immovable property valued at thirty lakh rupees or more. The due date for filing the AIR is the 31st August immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. In the event of failure to furnish the Air, penalty is leviable u/s 271FA which is reproduced as under:-
"If a person who is required to furnish an Annual Information Return, as required under sub-section (1) of Section 285BA, fails to furnish return within the time prescribed under that sub-section, the Income Ta Authority prescribed under that sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues."
4. As per the record of this office, The Manager, The Gurdaspur Central Co- op. bank Ltd., Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'Filer') filed the Annual Information Returns (AIRs) late, in respect of specified financial transactions registered or recorded by it for the Financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 as per details given below:-
Sr. No. Financial year Due date for Filed on Delay
filing AIR (in days)
1. 2004-05 30.11.2005 21.09.2007 659 days
3
2. 2005-06 31.08.2006 21.09.2007 385 days
3. 2006-07 31.08.2007 21.09.2007 21 days
4. 2007-08 31.08.2008 08.12.2009 463 days
5. 2008-09 31.08.2009 08.12.2009 98 days
5. In this regard, show cause notice was issued by this office on 28.01.2010 directing the Filer to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271FA of the Act should not be imposed on it for failure to furnish the AIRs in time, and the reply was sought by 15.02.2010. In response to this show cause notice, neither anybody attended nor any request for adjournment etc. was received in this office.
6. Final Opportunity letter F.No. DIT/CIB/CHD/2009-10/4822 dated 23.02.2010 was issued to the Filer fixing its case for hearing on 02.03.2010.
6.1. On the appointed day i.e. on 02.03.2010 neither anybody appeared personally nor any communication was received till closing hours of the day. In the result, this final opportunity remained unattended.
6.2. Still another opportunity was allowed to the Filer vide this office letter No. DIT/CIB/Chd/2009-10/5107 dated 12.03.2010, fixing the case of the Filer for 23.03.2010.
6.3. On the appointed date i.e. 23.03.2010 Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., the legal representative of the filer, attended and requested for more time to furnish the written reply. Accordingly, the case of the Filer was adjourned for 09.04.2010.
6.4. On 09.04.2010 letter (reminder) issued by this office vide No. DIT/CIB/Chd/2009-10/100 dated 09.04.2010, fixing the case of the Filer for 20.04.2010, was handed over to Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., who filed its Power of Attorney for this purpose.
6.5. On the appointed day i.e. 20.04.2010 Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., the legal representative of the Filer attended and requested for more time to furnish the written reply in this case. On his request the case was adjourned for 03.05.2010. Shri Aggarwal was also clarified that further no adjournment would be allowed.
6.6. On 03.05.2010 Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., the legal representative of the filer appeared and the case adjourned for 17.05.2010. Again on 17.05.2010 Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., the legal representative of the Filer attended and requested for adjournment. Accordingly, the case of the Filer was adjourned for 01.06.2010. On this day also the legal representative of the Filer chose not to file written reply but requested for adjournment, which was allowed till 07.06.2010.
6.7. On 07.06.2010, shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., the legal representative of the Filer appeared and submitted written reply which is reproduced as under:-
4"1. We have filed Annual Information Return (AIR) of the Bank for all the years mentioned in your letter as per the following detail:-
F.Y. Date of filing
04-05 21.09.2007
05-06 21.09.2007
06-07 21.09.2007
07-08 08.12.2009
08-09 08.12.2009
Copy of receipts for filing of AIR issued by TIN facilitation centre is attached herewith for your reference.
2. We are a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-op. Societies Act and the society is engaged in the Banking Activities. We are semi-govt. institution and is controlled by NABARD & Reserve Bank of India.
3. It is submitted that the assessee filed the AIR data with the authority, through beyond the time prescribed under the Act. However, it is submitted that the delay was due to;
a. Late receipt of data from field units/branches of the assessee. b. The provision of filing AIR data was new and the officers and even the professional in our region were not update with this provision. c. As and when the bank came to know about the provision in question, it expedited the matter and filed the returns. The returns for succeeding years are being filed in time now.
4. It is requested that no penalty on above issue and facts may be levied on following grounds:-
a. The delay, if any, was bonafide and without any bad motive or without any intent to defraud revenue by any means. b. The return was just an information to the Department. No tax effect was involved. By late filing of AIR data, no revenue leakage has been caused.
c. The only default on the part of the assessee is that the returns were not filed within prescribed period of time. The assessee being the State Govt. Institution the officers have no personal interest. In the present case there is no loss of revenue to the Department and there is no unlawful gain to the assessee.
d. Section 273B of the Act provide that penalty may not be imposed in certain circumstances and one of the circumstances is that if the person concerned proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure of action or omission for which penalty proceedings were initiated. It is most respectfully submitted that Section 271FA is also one of the sections which finds mention in section 273B of the Act. Filing of AIR was a new provision at all. Assessee was under the impression that we are not required to file the same because we are a Co-op. Bank not a commercial bank. Later on when we understand that we are also required to file the return of AIR then we recall the data from the Branches and filed the return required 5 as per law. We are a Co-op. Bank still running our operations on Manual System. It is sometimes difficult to collect the data from the Branches and hence we got late for filing of return. e. Sir, it is always our sincere effort to abide by the Lays of Land and we adhere to the Rules & Regulations stipulated by the Income Tax Act, 1961 by words & spirit. We have always filed our Income Tax Returns as well as TDS return in time.
5. On almost identical issue, the jurisdictional High Court and other courts of the country have held that delay in filing of TDS return especially by Govt./semi Govt. organizations may not invite penal action. Our case is identical with those facts. For this, we rely upon ratio of following judgements (copies enclosed):
a. CIT (TDS) vs. Executive Engineer ITA No. 425 of 2009 dated 19.08.2009 (P&H) b. Executive Engineer Irrigation, Banda Vs. CIT Kanpur ITR no. 42 of 1999 (All. HC) Keeping in view the above facts and submission, we request your goodself to kindly condone the delay in filing of AIR and file the initiated penalty proceedings. We assure that such an omission will never happen in future.
Prayer u/s 273A to waive penal action
6. It is further submitted that since the present assessee had already filed the returns before the issuance of present show cause, the act of the assessee was bonafide, in good faith, will full and true disclosure of all particulars and without an intent to defraud revenue. Further the assessee has co-operated in full manner in the present and all previous proceedings.
In the light of above facts, we hereby make a prayer u/s 273A of the Act that penalty may not be levied.
Your kindness in the regard will provide a great relief to the assessee."
14. Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A., in addition to the submission of the letter which has been reproduced above also requested for further time of about two weeks to make further submissions on the issue. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 22.06.2010 at his request. On 22.06.2010 Shri Parikshit Aggarwal attended and filed letter dated 22.06.2010, the contents of which are reproduced as under:-
"The proceedings in the case cited as subject above have been fixed for hearing today. In that regard, we respectfully submit as under:-
1. We rely upon our previous written submission and oral discussion, during the course of previous hearing.
2. a) The penalty initiated under the provisions of section 271FA lays down as under:-
"Penalty for failure to furnish an annual information return. 271FA. If a person who is required to furnish an annual information return, as required under sub-section (1) of Section 285BA, fails to furnish 6 such return within the time prescribed under that sub-section, the income tax authority prescribed under the said sub-section may diect that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues.
b) The relevant provisions of section 285BA(1) and (5) reads as under:-
"Obligation to furnish annual information return.
285BA (1) Any person, being
(a) an assessee; or
(b) the prescribed person in the case of an office of Government; or
(c) a local authority or other public body or association; or
(d) The Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908); or
(e) the registering authority empowered to registered motor vehicles
under chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) ; or
(f) the Post Master General as referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of the Indian Post office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898); or
(g) the Collector referred to in clause (c) of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); or
(h) the recognized stock exchange referred to in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) ; or
(i) an officer of the Reserve Bank of India, constituted under section 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); or
(j) a depository referred to in clause (e) of sub section 2 of the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996).
who is responsible for registering or maintaining books of accounts or other document containing a record of any specified financial transaction under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an annual information return, in respect of such specified financial transaction which is registered or recorded by him during any financial year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 and information relating to which is relevant and required for the purposes of this Act, to the prescribed income tax authority or such other authority or agency as may be prescribed.
(5) Where a person who is required to furnish an annual information return under sub-section (1) has not furnished the same within the prescribed time, the prescribed income-tax authority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish the annual information return within the time specified in the notice."
c) A reading of section 271FA and its head note lays down that penalty is to be levied if the assessee fails to file AIR within time prescribed u/s 285BA(1). However, factually no time is prescribed u/s 285BA(1). Section 285BA prescribes two time limitations i.e. u/s (2) and (5). Sub Section (2) prescribes 31st August after end of F.Y. as the limitation date and Sub Section (5) prescribes 60 days after issuance of notice for non-filing of return. U/s (5), your 7 Honour has been empowered to issue notice for non-filing of return. In the present case no notice was issued u/s 285BA(5). The assessee filed the returns suo-moto, though belatelly beyond the time prescribed u/s 285BA(2). Now since section 281FA refers only to section 285BA (1) which does not prescribe any time, the levy of penalty will be unjustified since the assessee has filed the returns before time u/s 285BA(5).
3. Without prejudice to above, the delay in filing of AIR for the financial year 2006-07 was 21 days only. The delay was very sort. Lenient view may be taken for that year.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, it is requested that a lenient view may be taken in the case and no penalty may please be levied."
15. I have carefully considered the contention of the Filer and perused the relevant record. The contentions raised by the Filer in its letter dated 07.06.2010 and 22.06.2010 are discussed hereunder one by one:-
a) Late receipt of data from field units/branches.
This is purely administrative and internal matter of the Filer. It is within its administrative control to manage/administer its own affairs to the desired efficiency. It has no relevance to the requirement of law for filing of AIR.
b) Officers of the bank were not updated with the provisions of filing of AIR and as and when they came to know, they expedited the matter and filed the returns.
Ignorance of law is not an excuse for not complying with the required provisions. Further this argument of the assessee does not appear to be credible in view of the fact that even assuming it did not have proper knowledge about the provisions of law till the filing of AIR for financial years 2004-05 to 2006-07, the AIRs for the F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 which were due on 31.08.2008 and 31.08.2009 respectively were also filed late by 362 and 98 days respectively. Therefore, this alibi taken by the Filer has no force and is only an afterthought.
c) The delay was bonafide and without any bad motive/intent to defraud the revenue and no tax effect was involved.
The delay whether bonafide or malafide can only be condoned if it can be explained away with a reasonable cause, otherwise it is not the requirement of law that the delay should be intentional to invite penalty u/s 271FA. Leakage of revenue/tax effect is also not relevant as this provision has no linkage to the amount of tax recoverable/collectible etc.
d) The assessee being State Govt. Institution, the officers had no personal interest and no unlawful gain was caused to the Filer by this delay.
The applicability of law is to be seen the status of the Filer i.e. whether the Filer is private or Govt. Institution makes no difference. Section 271FA does not question the presence/absence of personal interest and there is no connection what-so-ever with the possible revenue loss/tax effect etc.
(e) If there is a reasonable cause for delay as provided u/s 273B, then penalty is not leviable as the Filer was under doubt whether the provisions of section 285BA were applicable to it or not.
8This argument/contention of the assessee is also not correct because the language of the Act is very clear. The Filer is admittedly bank and there is nothing brought on record by the Filer to show that it had any doubt about the applicability of the provisions. It is simply an-afterthought to escape the legal consequences for delay in filing of AIRs. There is absolutely no quarrel with the provisions of section 273B wherein a reasonable cause for delay can be accepted as ground for dropping penalty proceedings. But in the instant case there is no reasonable cause shown by the Filer for the delay in filing of AIRs.
The Filer has relied upon following case laws:-
1) CIT (TDS) vs. Executive Engineer ITA No. 425 of 2009 dated 19.08.;2009 (P&H)
2) Executive Engineer Irrigation, Banda Vs. CIT Kanpur ITR No. 42 of 1999 (All. H.C.) After going through these two judgements it is felt that the reliance placed by the Filer on these two decisions is misplaced and out of context. The decisions have been rendered in the context of penalty u/s 272A(2) (g) and this penalty has nexus with the tax leviable/collectible and hence the factor of there being possible loss of revenue becomes relevant. In the instant case loss of revenue is not a consideration. The intent, therefore, is not a factor here as is the case with section 272A(2) (g). Also the penalty u/s 272A(2) (g) is to be calculated/quantified with respect to the tax effect. Here while levying penalty u/s 271FA of the Act we are not concerned with any tax effect/leakage of revenue etc.
16. Further it is important to point out that the arguments mentioned by the Filer in para 5 of its letter dated 07.06.2010 (reproduced below) are totally incorrect and do not emanate from the Court decisions cited by it:-
5. On almost identical issue, the jurisdictional High Court and other courts of the country have held that delay in filing of TDS return especially by Govt./Semi Govt. organizations may not invite penal action.
Our case is identical with those facts. For this, we rely upon ratio of following judgements (copies enclosed);
17. The relevant portion of the judgement which is being relied upon to draw this conclusion is reproduced as under:-
We have considered the facts of the ase and rival submissions. We find that the tax was properly deducted and paid in time in the treasury. Thus, the revenue did not suffer in any manner in so far as collection of tax is concerned. There were delays in issuing certificates to othe payees, for which a satisfactory explanation has been furnished. The payee has not raised any grievance in this matter. Therefore, the default, if any, is technical and venial in nature, not justifying the levy of penalty."
18. Examination of this clearly shows that the interpretation taken by the Filer is completely off the mark. The cited decisions only talks about of there being a satisfactory explanation as a sine-quanon for dropping of penalty u/s 272A(2)(g). Although we are not concerned with the penalty u/s 272A(2) (g) even going by this principle since there is no satisfactory explanation given by the filer for delay in filing of AIR, the case law does not apply and the inference drawn by the Filer 9 is completely wrong. In view of the above, therefore, the Court decisions mentioned by the Filer do not apply to the present case at all.
19. Summary of contentions raised vide letter dated 22.06.2010. The assessee has reproduced the language of section 285BA of the Act and has tried to argue that the time limit prescribed u/s 285BA (2) does not apply to the filing of AIR u/s 285BA(1). With due respect to the Filer, the provisions have been read/interpreted wrongly. Section 285BA has to be read as a whole and then the time limits prescribed under various sub-sections in respect of the return required to be filed u/s 285BA(1) will apply. This has been so in view of two different time limits applying the Fliers in view of two different situations like 258BA(1) will apply. This has been done so in view of two different time limits applying on the Fliers in view of two different situations like 285BA(2) and time limit will apply in the case of suo moto filing of AIR and time limit prescribed under sub section (5) will apply in the case of Filers in whose cases the Department issues notices calling for such returns. Statutorily speaking there is no requirement of issue of any notice by the Department for filing of AIR and hence the time limit prescribed under sub-section (2) will apply. The arguments taken by the Flier while interpreting the provisions of Section 285BA are wrong and not acceptable
20. Lastly, the assessee has made a request "without prejudice" to its arguments saying that AIR for financial year 2006-07 was late only by 21 days and the delay being short, a lenient view may be taken. This argument of the legal representative of the Filer appears to be reasonable as the delay involved is short and by taking a lenient view, can be ignored while calculating the amount of penalty leviable for the Financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09. Therefore, penalty proceedings for the financial year 2006-07 are dropped.
21. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned facts the arguments given by the assessee and the contentions raised in its written submissions have been found to be unacceptable except for the one for taking lenient view for financial year 2006-07 Apart from the discussions on each and every contention appearing in the earlier paragraphs, it is important to note that the assessee has been filing AIR late year after year right from financial year 2004-05 to 2008-09. There is no reasonable cause shown by the Filer during the long duration of hearing running into eight occasions. Therefore, the Filer is liable for penalty u/s 271FA @ Rs.100/- per day which is calculated as under:
Financial year Period default No of days of Amount of penalty default 2004-05 01.12.2005 to 21.09.2007 659 days Rs.65,900/- 2005-06 01.09.2006 to 21.09.2007 385 days Rs.38,500/- 2007-08 01.09.2008 to 08.12.2009 463 days Rs.46,300/- 2008-09 01.09.2009 to 08.12.2009 98 days Rs. 9,800/-
Total 1605 days Rs.1,60,500/-
Accordingly, penalty of Rs.1,60,500/- (1605 x 100) is imposed."10
4. At the very outset, Sh. Tarsem Lal, the Ld. DR, vehemently argued that this Bench of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals of the assessee. According to him, the appeals should have been filed before the concerned Ld. CIT(A), as per provisions of section 246A(1)(q) of the Act, and not before the Tribunal. He also invited our attention to the provisions of section 253 of the Act, wherein no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against the order passed under section 271FA, has been given to the Tribunal. On the other hand, Shri J.S. Bhasin, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the present appeals and, therefore, the appeals may be decided on merits.
5. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain these appeals. In our view, this Bench of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeals passed by the Director of Income-
tax (CIB), Chandigarh, because there is no provisions under section 253 of the Act, to entertain the appeals by the Tribunal. Section 253 of the Act, reads as under:
"Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.
253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order--
(a) an order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [before the 1st day of October, 1998] [or, as the case my be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under [***] [section 154], [***] section 250, [section 271, section 271A or section 272A]; or [(b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or] 11 [(ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 115VZC; or]
(c) an order passed by a Commissioner [under section 12AA [or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G] or] under section 263 [or under section 271] [or under section 272A] [***] or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263] [or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A; [or]] [(d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-
section (3), of section 143 or section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order.] (2) The Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [before the 1st day of October, 1998] 1[or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under [section 154 or] section 250, direct the [Assessing] Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order.
(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the Commissioner, as the case may be :
[Provided that in respect of any appeal under clause (b) of sub- section (1), this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "sixty days", the words "thirty days" had been substituted.] (4) The [Assessing] Officer or the assessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof; within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order8 of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3).
(5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant 12 period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. (6) An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of,--
(a) where the total income of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer, in the case to which the appeal relates, is one hundred thousand rupees or less, five hundred rupees,
(b) where the total income of the assessee, computed as aforesaid, in the case to which the appeal relates is more than one hundred thousand rupees but not more than two hundred thousand rupees, one thousand five hundred rupees,
(c) where the total income of the assessee, computed as aforesaid, in the case to which the appeal relates is more than two hundred thousand rupees, one per cent of the assessed income, subject to a maximum of ten thousand rupees,
(d) where the subject matter of an appeal relates to any matter, other than those specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c), five hundred rupees:] Provided that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an appeal referred to in sub-section (2) or a memorandum of cross-objections referred to in sub-section (4).
(7) An application for stay of demand shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees."
6.1 From the above, it is clear that no power to entertain the appeals against the order passed under section 271FA, has been provided to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the powers have been given to the CIT(A) under section 246A(1)(q), which reads as under:
Sec. 246A(1)(q) : "An assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders (whether made before or after the appointed day) may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against:13
" an order imposing a penalty under Chapter XXI"
6.2. In view of the clear provisions of section 246A(1)(q) of the Act, an appeal against the order passed under Chapter XXI can be preferred before the CIT(A). The provisions of section 271FA falls under the Chapter XXI of the Act. Thus, in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Act, these appeals cannot be admitted by us, particularly, when we have no jurisdiction under the law to entertain such appeals. Consequently, we dismiss all the appeals, for want of jurisdiction.
7. However, it is made clear that the assessee is free to prefer appeals against the order of the Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh, in right forum, if so advised.
8 In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Decision pronounced in the open court on 16th June, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MEHAR SINGH) (H.L. KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: 16th June, 2011
/SKR/
Copy of the order is forwarded to :
1. The Assessee:The Manager, The Gurdaspur Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Gurdaspur.
2. The Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh.
3. The SR DR,Asr True copy By Order (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench : Amritsar.
14