Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In all the cases, both assessees have taken identical grounds of appeal. The grounds raised in ITA No.261(Asr)2013, which are identical in all other appeals are reproduced hereunder:

"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the penalty imposed u/s 271FA of the Income tax Act, 1961 for non-filing the AIR within time as prescribed u/s 114E(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
ITA Nos. 266 to 270(Asr)/2013
5. That no loss was put to the department for late filing of the AIR. So, the penalty is liable to be quashed. Even the mere violation would not be enough to justify the levy of penalty as it is not automatic. It is discretionary as the word used is 'may' in section 271FA against the word 'shall'. It is only a technical default.
6. That there were only nil entries in the relevant assessment years. So, the department should have taken liberal view as was taken in the case of Sub Registrar, Kotkapura for assessment year 2005-06 where there were only two entries and the penalty was dropped suo motto."

3. The facts in the present appeals are identical to all the appeals in this order with respect to levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, all the appeals mentioned hereinabove are decided by this consolidated order.

4. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. J.K.Gupta, Advocate argued that the facts in the present case are identical to the facts decided by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in ITA Nos. 137 to 140(Asr)/2013 and others vide order dated 30.05.2013 except in ITA No.261(Asr)/2013 and in ITA No. 263(Asr)/2013 and there was no registration of any document as required under section 285BA(1) of the Act and therefore, no AIR was required to be filed by the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee placed on record the order passed by the Director of Income Tax (CIB) in the case of 'The Sub-