Ita/151/2014 Of Sub Registrat Muktsar v. Director Of Income Tax (Cib) Chandigarh_ And

ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M)Date of decision: 15.9.2014 The Sub Registrar, Muktsar, Punjab Vs, ..-.-- Appe Director of Income Tax (CIB) .....Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1,This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the orderdated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.5 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Amritsar (in short, “the Tribunal’) in ITA Nos.130-134(ASR)/ 2013 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, claiming followingsubstantial questions of law:- 1) Whether the appellant is lable to penalty under Section2'71KA in the absence of mens rea2'71KA in the absence of mens rea i1) Whether the quantum of penalty imposed is justified in thpeculiar facts and circumstances of the case?peculiar facts and circumstances of the case? i11)Whether findings of the learned Tribunal are perverse and contrary to record? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed.Under section 285BA(1) ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) | (d) of the Act read with Rule 114E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short,“the Rules”), a Registrar or Sub Registrar appointed under Section 6 of theRegistration Act, 1908 was subjected to a statutory obligation of furnishingAnnual Information Report (AIR) pertaining to purchase/sale deedexceeding an amount of=a30 lacs so registered by him during a year. Thesaid AIR was required to be furnished by the Registrar or the Sub Registrarwith the appropriate authority in prescribed Form 61A of the Rules.Theappellant being Sub Registrar of Muktsar was required to file AIR with thecompetent authority but he failed to furnish required information wellwithin the prescribed period. The appellant furnished returns of variousyears. The Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh on account ofdelayed furnishing of return imposed a penalty ofLy100/- per day in respectof all the financial years vide order dated 22.12.2010, Annexure A.1,Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed separate appeals tor eachassessment year before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 14.12.2012, Annexure A.3, the CIT(A) partlyallowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant filedappeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.5, theTribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee, 3We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusedthe record. 4The Tribunal had decided 39 appeals vide one consolidatedorder dated 30.5.2013. The present appeal was also one of the cases decidedby the Tribunal vide order dated 30.5.2013. Similar appeals filed against thesaid order bearing ITA No.344 of 2013,Joint Sub Registrar SangatDistrict Bathinda vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and ITA No.151 of 2014 (O&M) connected cases had been decided by this Court against the appellants anddismissed on 21.7 2014. 5In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises andthe appeal stands dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits,no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delayunder section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is left open. September 15, 2014 (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge|(Fateh Deep Singh)svudg