Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That the advisory letter issued on 20.11.2006 can not be considered as notice u/s 258BA(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not received the same as the same was not served according to section 282 read with order V of CPC. The default should be counted from the notice issued u/s 285BA(5) in September, 2010 as the department itself was sleeping over the matter for the last 5 years.

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-

"15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. In the present case, the main argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora was that the assessee was ignorant of law i.e. about section 285BA of the Act. He argued that the Income Tax Authority has not served any notices on the assessee and when the notice was served, the assessee filed the annual information return (In short 'AIR') and no penalty should be accordingly levied upon the assessee. In this regard, we are of the view on perusal of section ITA Nos. 266 to 270(Asr)/2013 285BA of the Act, which was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f.1.4.2005, it is not the case that this section has been introduced for the first time by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. Prior to its substitution, section 285BA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004, where any assessee who enters into any financial transaction, as may be prescribed, with any other person, shall furnish, within the prescribed time, an annual information return in such form and manner, as may be prescribed in respect of such financial transaction entered into by him during any previous year. Rule 114A to 114E prescribes such return to be furnished in Form No.61A and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. At item No.6 of the said Rule, return shall be furnished on or before 31st August, immediately following the financial year in which the transaction is registered or recorded. Section 285BA(5) is reproduced for the sake of clarity as under:

Section 285BA(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.] 15.1. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has taken the shelter of section 285BA(5) of the Act, which is reproduced hereinabove that the Income Tax Authority are under a mandate to serve the notice to the assessee in case annual information return is not filed for years together after insertion of the section by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004 initially and thereafter by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 mentioned hereinabove. Whereas this is not a case, the words used by the statute in section 285BA(5) gives option for the Income Tax Authority to serve notice which may or may not be served upon. The word 'may' used in section 285BA(5) clearly indicates the option for the Income Tax Authority. It is not obligatory on the Income Tax Authority to serve such notice. Therefore, interpretation has to be strictly construed. There is no ambiguity in the same. The courts cannot add or amend and by construction cannot make up the deficiencies in the Act. It is contrary to all rules of construction unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or having ITA Nos. 266 to 270(Asr)/2013 a doubtful meaning. We are not entitled to usurp legislative function disguise of interpretation. The courts are meant to interpret law, cannot legislate it. Our views find supports from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India And Others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors And Others reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277. In the present case, issuance and service of notice under section 285BA(5) is not obligatory on the Income Tax Authority.