The Sub Registrar, Fatehgarh Sahib v. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 674/CHANDI/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 67421514 RSA 2012
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 674/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant The Sub Registrar, Fatehgarh Sahib
Respondent Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 19-12-2012
Next Hearing Date 19-12-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 18-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 674 & 675/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2009-10) THE SUB REGISTRAR VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X (CIB) BASSI PATHANA CHANDIGARH. DISTT. FATEHGARH SAHIB. PAN: PTLS 15931G AND ITA NOS. 676 677 678 & 679/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 2006-07 2008-09 & 2009- 10) THE SUB REGISTRAR VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X (CIB) NABHA CHANDIGARH. DISTT. PATIALA. PAN: PTLT11124B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J.M : OUT OF THESE SIX APPEALS 2 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR BASSI PATHANA DISTRICT FATEHGARH SAHIB AND FOUR AP PEALS ARE FILED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR NABHA DISTRICT PATIALA AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST PENAL TY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF THE ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2 THE SUB REGISTRAR BASSI PATHANA DISTT. FATEHGARH SAHIB : ASSTT. YEAR DATE OF ORDER OF CIT(A) PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271FA 2006-07 26.4.2012 RS.33 400/- 2009-10 -DO- RS.10 100/- THE SUB REGISTRAR NABHA DISTT. PATIALA : ASSTT. YEAR DATE OF ORDER OF CIT(A) PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271FA 2005-06 26.4.2012 RS.60 700/- 2006-07 -DO- RS.33 300/- 2008-09 -DO- RS.13 700/- 2009-10 -DO- RS.35 300/- 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER/S OF THE CIT (APPEALS) PATIALA IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE RAISED I N ALL THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND WE PROC EED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS AGAINST THE U PHOLDING OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT UNDER SECTI ON 285 BA(1) OF THE ACT CERTAIN PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR) IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION S REGISTERED OR RECORDED BY HIM DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE NAT URE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE THRESHOLD VALUE FOR INFORMATIO N 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 RETU RN IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED IS FORM NO.61A. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS AUTHORIZED M/S NATIONAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORIES LTD. (NSDL) AS THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AIRS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL INFORMATION BRANCH). THE FILER CAN ALSO F URNISH THE AIR WITH THE FACILITATION CENTRES OF NSDL LOCATED IN DIFFER ENT PARTS OF THE 3 COUNTRY. ITEM NO.6 OF THE TABLE IN RULE 114E SPECI FIES THAT THE REGISTRAR OR SUB-REGISTRAR APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT 1908 IS REQUIRED TO FILE AIR IN RESPECT OF TRA NSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OR SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT THIRTY LAKHS RUPEES OR MORE. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE AIR IS THE 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE TRANSACTION IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO FURNISH THE AIR PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR BASSI PATHANA AND ALSO THE SU B REGISTRAR NABHA DISTT. PATIALA FURNISHED THE ANNUAL INFORMAT ION RETURNS IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS LATE. THE DIT (CIB) ISS UED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE/S BEFORE US TO SH OW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA BE NOT IMPOSED. THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN REPLY DATED 20.10.2010 ( IN P UNJABI) WAS THAT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE FILI NG THE AIR. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE AIR FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 20.10.2010. IN SECOND COMMUNICATION THE FILER STAT ED THE REASONS FOR LATE FILING OF AIR DUE TO RUSH OF WORK. FURTHER RE PLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 28.1.2011 IS REPRODUCED BY THE DIT (CIB) OFFI CER UNDER PARA 5.3 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS A DMITTED THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS NOT AWARE OF CHANGE IN LAW REGARDING FILING OF AIR INFORMATION. FURTHER BECAUSE OF ACUTE SHORTAGE OF STAFF AND HANDLING OF MANY DEPARTMENTS AIR INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED VOL UNTARILY THOUGH LATE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT AS THERE WAS NO TAX INVOLVEMENT IT WOUL D NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE RETURN WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME. FURTHER HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE IN GETTING TH E AIR INFORMATION IN TIME SINCE IT ONLY CONTAINS THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REGARDING REGISTRATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF ABOVE 4 RS.30 LAKHS. NO BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE HAD_BEEN DERI VED BY THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF SUCH ACT OF FILING AIR INFORMATION LAT E. THE DIT (CIB) REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE O N ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS CONTENTIONS UNDER PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER H ELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF T HE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AIR LATE FOR ALL THE FINANCI AL YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE THE HABI TUAL DEFAULTER WITHOUT ANY CONCERN/RESPECT TO THE LAW OF THE LAND. THE AS SESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT @ RS. 100/- PER DAY OF THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OBS ERVING THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS A RESPONSIBLE OFFICER OF THE GOVE RNMENT AND WELL EDUCATED AND WELL CONVERSANT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT THE OFFICE OF DIT (CIB) HAD ISSUE ADVISORY LETTERS TO THE FILERS FROM TIME TO TIME EV EN IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO SAY THAT THIS INFOR MATION WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT (APPEALS). 7. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE PRESCRIBED RETURNS WERE FILED SUO MOTO THOUGH ADMITTEDLY LATE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE TH AT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY WAS ISSUED ON 1.9.2010. THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL BREACH AND BECAUSE OF TH E SAID TECHNICAL BREACH THERE WAS DELAY IN FURNISHING THE REQUISITE RETURNS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA AND AL SO SUB-SECTIONS (4) AND (5) TO SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED A .R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AL SO PLACED RELIANCE ON 5 THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STA TE OF ORISSA [83 ITR 26(SC)] THAT NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF TECHNICAL AND VENIAL DEFAULT. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB) [338 ITR 167 (GUJ)] WHEREIN THE LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA WAS UPHELD AS THE CAPTIONED RETURNS W ERE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW AS NOT EXCUSE BUT LAW BEING VAST EVERYBODY WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO KN OW THE LAW AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MOTILAL PADAMPAT SU GAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS [118 ITR 326 (S C)]. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON 32 0 ITR 188 (P&H). 8. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT NO TAXES WERE TO BE DEDUCTED AND ONLY THE REQUIREMENT WAS TO FURNISH INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED ABOVE THE SLATED MONETARY LIMIT. 9. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T ADMITTEDLY THE RETURNS WERE FILED LATE BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHA KARI BANK LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (CIB) (SUPRA) THE PLEA OF I GNORANCE OF LAW COULD NOT BE PLEADED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE LEARN ED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT EVEN WHEN THE LAW WAS KNOWN TO THE SUB REGISTRAR I.E. ON 30.7.2007 THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE CAPTIONED RETURNS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR T HE REVENUE PLEADED THAT AFTER LAW WAS KNOWN AND THERE WAS CONSCIOUS DI SREGARD OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'B LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) APPLIED. 6 10. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTER NATE SUBMISSION THAT NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSABLE IN THE FIRST TWO YEAR S. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE FINANCIAL YEAR INVOLV ED IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR BASSI PATHANA WERE 2005-06 AND 2008- 09. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WAS 31.8.2006 AND FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WA S 31.8.2009 AND THE SAID RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.7.200 7/10.12.2009 I.E. AFTER A DELAY OF 334/101 DAYS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSME NT YEARS. 12. IN THE CASE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR NABHA THE DE FAULT IN FURNISHING THE RESPECTIVE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS FOR THE R ESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS IS TABULATED HEREUNDER: S.NO. FINANCIAL YEAR DUE DATE FOR FILING AIR FILED ON DELAY (IN DAYS) 1. 2004 - 05 30.11.2005 30.07.2007 607 DAYS 2. 2005 - 06 31.08.2006 30.07.2007 333 DAYS 3. 2006 - 07 31.08.2007 15.01.2008 137 DAYS 4. 2008 - 09 31.08.2009 19.08.2010 353 DAYS 13. THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FURNISHING THE SAID ANN UAL INFORMATION RETURNS BY THE SUB REGISTRAR HAVE BEEN ELABORATED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY DATED 28.1.2011 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHICH IN TURN IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 5.3 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT FILING OF ANNUA L INFORMATION RETURNS WAS A NEW LAW AND THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS AN OVER-WORKED PERSON HANDLING MANY DEPARTMENTS AND BECAUSE OF RUSH OF WO RK WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CHANGE IN LAW REGARDING FILING OF ANNUAL INF ORMATION RETURNS. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BECA USE OF ACUTE SHORTAGE OF STAFF THE TEHSILDAR WAS HANDLING MANY DEPARTMENT S AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LATE SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS. ADMITTEDLY THE SAID ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS WERE FURNISHED LATE BUT BEFORE ISSUE OF ANY 7 NOTICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUB REGISTRAR WAS UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT AS THERE WAS NO TAX INVOLVEMENT IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE RETURN IS NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME. HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF INTENTI ON OF LEGISLATURE IN GETTING THE AIR INFORMATION IN TIME. SINCE IT ONLY CONTAINS THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPART MENT REGARDING REGISTRATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF ABOVE RS.30 LAKHS. NO BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE HAD BEEN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY VI RTUE OF SUCH ACT OF FILING AIR INFORMATION LATE . 14. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUN AL IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED AN OBL IGATION TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT BY THE PRESCRIBED PERSON FOR THE SPECIFIED TRANSACTION WITHIN STIPULATED TIM E. THE SUB REGISTRAR IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285B A OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT IN RE SPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE BY ANY PERSON OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS.30 LACS OR MORE. THE DUE DAT E FOR FILING THE SAID AIR INFORMATION IN FORM NO.61A IS 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED OR RECORDED. THE ONUS I S UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SPECIFIED INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. 24. COMING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF TH E ACT THE SUB-SECTION (1) PROVIDES THE LIST OF PERSONS WH O ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN I N RESPECT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE REGISTERED OR R ECORDED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2004. SUCH INFORMATION IS TO BE FURNISHED T O THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY I.E. THE DIRECTOR O F INCOME TAX (CENTRAL INFORMATION BRANCH) OR THE AUTHORITY/A GENCY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT I.E. NSDL. THE ANNUAL INF ORMATION RETURN REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) TO SECTION 28 5BA OF THE ACT AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) IS TO BE FURNISHED ON O R BEFORE 31 ST AUGUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED OR RECORDED IN FORM NO. 61A AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 114E OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. SUB- SECTION (3) DEFINES SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH MAY BE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE BOARD HAS GIVEN A UTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE DIFFERENT VALUES FOR DIFFERENT TRANSACTIO NS IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT PERSONS HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE O F SAID 8 TRANSACTION. UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) WHERE THE PRESC RIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY CONSIDERS THE ANNUAL INFORMATI ON RETURN FURNISHED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) TO BE DEFECTIVE TH EN SUCH DEFECTS ARE TO BE INTIMATED TO THE PRESCRIBED PERSO N AND AN OPPORTUNITY IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR RECTIFYING THE SAM E WITHIN THE SPECIFIED/ EXTENDED PERIOD. IN CASE SAID DEFECTS A RE NOT REMOVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED OR EXTENDED PERIOD TH EN SUCH RETURNS WOULD BE TREATED AS AN INVALID RETURN AND T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY AS IF THE PERSON HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN. UNDER SU B-SECTION (5) WHERE THE PRESCRIBED PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED A NNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON NOT ICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN A PERIO D NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS. 25. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE AC T PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN THE EVENT OF THE PERSON RES PONSIBLE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. SECTION 271 FA OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: [ PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORMATION R ETURN. 271FA. IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL IN FORMATION RETURN AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 285BA FAILS TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SAID SUB-SECTION MAY DIRECT TH AT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF ONE HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVE RY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES.] 26. READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IT TRANSPIR ES THAT WHERE THE PRESCRIBED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE AI R AND FAILS TO FURNISH THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME THEN S UCH PERSON COULD BE HELD TO BE LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY EQUIV ALENT TO RS.100/- FOR EVERY DAY OF DEFAULT. THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT TH E PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS NOT TO BE IMPOSE D WHERE THE PERSON PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR T HE SAID FAILURE/DEFAULT. THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS ALSO COVERED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 273B OF THE ACT. IT THUS IMPLIES THAT IN EACH CASE OF DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT COMPUL SORY AND THE SAME IS NOT IMPOSABLE IF THE PERSON SATISFIES THE C ONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. 27. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SU PRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER: SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION UPO N ANY PERSON BEING AN ASSESSEE WHO IS RESPONSIBL E FOR REGISTERING OR MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHE R DOCUMENTS CONTAINING A RECORD OF ANY SPECIFIED FINA NCIAL TRANSACTION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FO RCE TO FURNISH AN ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN IN RESPECT OF SUCH 9 SPECIFIED FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WHICH IS REGISTERED OR RECORDED BY HIM DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OR AFTER THE APRIL 1 2004 AND INFORMATION RELATIN G TO WHICH IS RELEVANT AND REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR SUCH OTHER AUTHORITY OR AGENCY AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. SUCH ANNU AL INFORMATION REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR . SUB- SECTION (5) OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN T HAT 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 D ATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE AND HE SHALL FURNISH THE ANN UAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE. 28. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE P ETITIONER HAD MADE OUT A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE PRESCRIBED AIR RETURN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NO T AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. THE HO N'BLE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE PERSON HAD NOT FURN ISHED THE AIR RETURN UNDER SECTION 285BA(1) OF THE ACT SUB-S ECTION (5) THEREOF LAYS DOWN THAT PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITY MAY SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FU RNISH SAID RETURN WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE HON'BLE CO URT CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT UPON SUCH NOTICE BEING SE RVED THE PETITIONER CAN NO LONGER PLEAD THAT IT WAS UNAWARE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE S AME. THE HON'BLE COURT THUS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. THE HON' BLE COURT OBSERVED THAT HOWEVER MERELY BECAUSE THE PETITIONE R HAS NOT IMMEDIATELY TAKEN STEPS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE F IRST NOTICE ON DECEMBER 17 2008 IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RE ASONABLE CAUSE MADE OUT BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR THERETO SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHI LE CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED U NDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE DATED DECEMBER 17 2008 I SSUED UNDER SECTION 285BA(5) OF THE ACT ANY DEFAULT ON THE PAR T OF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE VIEWED AS A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND AS SUCH IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO THE PETITIONER WOULD NOT BE ENT ITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE AC T. THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT IN THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KANUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL [2008] 306 ITR 179 (GUJ) O N WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONE R. 29. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MOTILAL PADAMPAT S UGAR MILLS CO.LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS [118 ITR 326(S.C.)] HAD HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION TH AT EVERY 10 PERSON KNOWS THE LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERY ONE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW BUT THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT: THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. WITHOUT G OING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT S AME IS APPLICABLE ONLY TILL THE TIME THE SPECIFIED PERSON WAS MADE AWARE THROUGH THE NOTICE OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SE CTION 285BA OF THE ACT OR HAD BECOME AWARE ON ITS OWN NOT ION. HOWEVER THE SITUATION WOULD CHANGE AFTER HAVING RE CEIVED THE NOTICE FOR FILING THE AIRS. THE SPECIFIED PERSON WA S WELL AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION AND ITS OBLIGATIONS. 30. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND AS REFERRE D TO BY US IN PARAS HEREINABOVE THE CASE OF THE SPECIFIED PER SONS BEFORE US IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE A CT BEING NEWLY INTRODUCED WERE NOT IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BE CAUSE OF THE SAME THERE WAS DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAI D PROVISIONS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA THAT IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND BECAUSE OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAID PROVISIONS THERE WAS DEFAULT IN FURNISHING THE PRESCRIBED INFORMATION BE FORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THUS WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE FOR THE PERIOD UPTO THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE BY WHICH THE S PECIFIED PERSONS BECAME AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS OR THROUGH ANY OTHER MODE AS THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE SAID INFORMATION IN TIME. HOWEVER THE SAID PLEA OF NON- AWARENESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD AFTER THE SAID DATE. FURTHER THE PERSO N CANNOT TAKE SHELTER UNDER THE PLEA THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED IT WAS NOT AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS AS THE ONUS IS UPON THE PERSONS TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION. IN SUCH CAS ES THE DATE OF FIRST NOTICE OR DATE OF FURNISHING THE FIRST AIR UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT WOULD BE THE DATE OF NOTICE. 31. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL AND VENIAL B REACH NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSABLE FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 2 6 (S.C) AND C.T.RAMANATHAN AND CO. VS ITO 34 TTJ 125 (MAD) . 32. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGEMENTS WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT FAILURE TO FILE REQUIRED PARTICULARS I N RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF SALE VALUE OF RS. 30 LACS OR ABOVE UNDER SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TERMED MERELY BR EACH OF TECHNICAL NATURE BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFOR MATION THE REVENUE WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST SPECIFIED PERSONS I.E. PERSONS PURCHASING OR SELLING PROPERTIES IN VALUE E XCEEDING RS. 30 LACS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY SUB-REGISTRAR THE DEPARTME NT CAN LOOSE HUGE REVENUE. THEREFORE SUCH DEFAULT IS LEAD ING TO ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCES WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS TE CHNICAL. 33. SECONDLY IN ANY CASE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PAT AN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (SUPRA)HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS STATE OF ORISSA (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271FA OF THE ACT WHICH IS IDENTICAL AND STILL HELD THE P ENALTY TO BE LEVIABLE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD. 11 34. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN H.M. T. LTD. TRACTORS DIVISION VS CIT [ 274 ITR 544 (P&H) ] HAVE LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE THE TAX AT SOURC E HAD BEEN PAID IN TIME AND THE NECESSARY RETURN IN RESPECT TH EREOF WAS FILED IN TIME WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON ME RE LATE ISSUE OF TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE THERE WAS NO LO SS TO THE REVENUE AND THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE TAX DEDUCTI ON CERTIFICATE WAS MERELY TECHNICAL OR VENIAL IN NATUR E AND PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE SAID DECISION CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. 35. HOWEVER IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHER E THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE AIR WITHIN TIME COU LD NOT BE SAID TO BE MERE TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH. 36. THE NEXT PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO TAX INVOLVEMENT AND IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFER ENCE IF THE RETURN WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME DOES NOT STAND AS SIMILAR PLEA WAS RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA ) AND THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY CASE THE RE VENUE HAD NO USE FOR THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURNS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 WHEN THERE IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ANNUAL INFORM ATION RETURN IT IS BOUND BY IT. HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER T HE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES MAKE USE OF THE SAID INFORMA TION IS NOT THE LOOK OUT OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITION ER IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIR EMENTS AS PRESCRIBED FAILING WHICH IT HAS TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH FAILURE. BESIDES AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF N OT PROVIDING INFORMATION IN TIME THE REVENUE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION. 37. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF TRIB UNAL IN SUB REGISTRAR VS DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 137 TO 140/A SR/2013 VIDE ORDER 30.05.2013 HAD APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DO WN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA)AND HAD HELD THAT THE PER IOD OF PENALTY IS TO BE WORKED OUT FROM THE FIRST ADVISORY LETTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF IGNORANCE OF L AW MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS REJECTED IN VIEW OF RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAK ARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CIB) (SUPRA). BUT THE PLEA OF REASONA BLE CAUSE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF FIRST ADVISORY LETTER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 38. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE US IS IN RELATION TO THE FURNISHING OF INFOR MATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE AN D PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 30 LACS OR ABOVE. TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AWARENES S OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO AS NO TAN NUMBER WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE INFORMATION WAS FURNIS HED 12 MANUALLY WITH THE CONCERNED OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTM ENT AND WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE SAID DEPARTMENT F OR FURNISHING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. HOWEVER THE INFORMATION WAS UPLOADED ON THE NSDL ON A LATER DAT E. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT SUCH INFORMA TION FURNISHED MANUALLY BE ACCEPTED AS DATE OF COMPLIANC E TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT. ON THE PER USAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DIT (CIB) IN ITA NOS. 431 TO 434/CHD/2012 I.E. IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR JAG ADHARI WE FIND THAT THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE DIT (CIB) VIDE PARA 7 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER IM POSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE DIT ( CIB) THEREAFTER HAD ACCEPTED THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF M ANUAL INFORMATION AS DATE OF COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT AND HAD COMPUTED THE PENALTY LEVIA BLE UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT UPTO SUCH DATE I.E. IN THE CASE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 THE PERIOD OF PENALTY WAS D ETERMINED UPTO 11.10.2006 I.E. OF 41 DAYS THOUGH THE INFORMA TION ON NSDL WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A LATER DATE. 39. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS REGARD IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE A CT AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE THE RETURN EITHER WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY OR WITH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. HOWEVER UNDER THE PROVISO T O RULE 114E(3) OF THE IT RULES IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE A IR IS TO BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY ON BEHALF OF THE D IT (CIB) WHO IN TURN WOULD UPLOAD IT ON THE SOFTWARE. IN CA SES WHERE THE PERSON HAD FILED AIR WITH THE PRESCRIBED AUTHOR ITY BUT HAD NOT UPLOADED THE SAME THROUGH THE NSDL THEN THE SA ME WOULD BE A TECHNICAL DEFAULT AND THE PERSON COULD BE HELD TO HAVE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION THROUGH NSDL AND NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT BETWEEN THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE INFORMATION MANUALLY AND THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE INFORMATION THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY I.E. NSDL. HOWEVER THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF HAVING FURNISHED COMPLETE INFORMATION MANUALLY TO T HE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WHICH IN-TURN WAS FURNISHED T O THE AUTHORIZED AGENCY ON A LATER DATE. THE CASE OF REA SONABLE CAUSE ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE BENEFIT OF NON-LEVY O F PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE IS BEI NG ACCEPTED IN THE PRESENT YEARS WHICH ARE THE INITIAL YEARS WH EN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285BA OF THE ACT WERE INTRODU CED AND THERE WAS NON-AWARENESS ABOUT THE SAID PROVISIONS O F THE ACT. HOWEVER THE SAID PLEA WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE IN LATER YEARS AS COMPLETE AWARENESS ABOUT THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED A GENCY HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS. 40. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN REFERRED TO VARIOUS REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE DIFFERENT OFFIC ERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE INFORMATION FURNISHED AS PER THE REPLY PLACED AT PA GE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE S AID INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPONSE TO 13 THE INFORMATION SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS TO RS. 30 LACS WHICH IS NOT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR UNDER SECTI ON 285BA OF THE ACT. HENCE NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUC H REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE SAM E HAVE TO BE IGNORED. SIMILAR PLEA WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER YEARS BUT THERE IS NO BASIS OF THE SAME A S THE PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK REFLECTS THE SAID INFORMATION TO BE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES TRANSACTIONS OF SALE VALU E BETWEEN RS. 5 LACS AND RS. 30 LACS WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 28 5BA OF THE ACT THE INFORMATION IS TO BE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD HAVING SALE VALUE OF RS. 30 LACS OR MORE. THE SAID PLEAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS REJECTE D. 41. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABOVE IN-T URN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN PATAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS DIT (CI B) (SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPU TE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271BA OF THE ACT AND THE PERIOD OF PENALTY IN FURNISHING THE INFORMATION WOULD BE C OMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS : 1. NO PENALTY TO BE LEVIED TILL THE FIRST NOTICE IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATIO N HOLDING THE SAME TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING THE AIRS IN TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS THE DATE OF FILING THE FIRST AIR WOULD BE DATE OF NOTICE. 2. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED MANUAL INFORMATION BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES IN RES PECT OF SPECIFIED TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 30 LACS OR MORE AN D NOT UPLOADED THE SAID INFORMATION THROUGH APPOINTED AGE NCY THEN DEFAULT BETWEEN DATE OF FURNISHING MANUAL INFORMATION AND UPLOADING ON SYSTEM BEING TECHNICA L IS TO BE IGNORED WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED BY DIT (CIB) IN MAJORITY OF CASES. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE COMPLETE INFORMATION OF MANUALLY FURNIS HING THE COMPLETE INFORMATION WHICH IN TURN WAS UPLOADE D. 3. NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT TO BE IMPOSED FOR THE OVERLAPPING PERIOD OF DEFAULT. FOR EG. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN FURNISHING AIRS FO R FOUR FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 TO 200 7-08 AND THE FIRST NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ON 01.01.2006 TH EN IN ALL THE YEARS NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE FOR DEFAULT U PTO 01.01.2006 AND IS LEVIABLE FOR THE DEFAULT THEREAFT ER. 43. HOWEVER IN CASES WHERE THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SPECIFIED PERSONS BEYOND THE ABOVESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION THE SPECIFIED PERSON WOULD BE HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT MAKING IT ELIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (CIB) IS DIRECTED TO REC OMPUTE THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN LINE WITH OUR DIRECTIONS. HOWEVER REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING SHOULD BE AFFORDED IN THIS REGARD AND THE S PECIFIED 14 PERSON SHALL FURNISH COMPLETE INFORMATION BEFORE HI S DIT (CIB) WITH REGARD TO ITS SEVERAL CLAIMS IN ORDER TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT AND THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT. THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED AS STATED ABOVE. 44. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. 15. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO T HE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SE CTION 271FA OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN LINE WITH O UR OBSERVATIONS IN THE SAID ORDER. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHAL L BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE DIT (CIB). THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH