Whether The Tribunal Is Right In Law In Sustaining The Penaltyimposed By The Respondent Under Section 271Fa Beyond Thetime Limitation Prescribed Under Section 2 v. Director Of Income Tax (Cib) Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.344 of2013(0&M)Date of decision: 21.7.2014 The Joint Sub Registrar, Sangat, District Bathinda| Vs, ..-.-- Appe Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh .....Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant, Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. inThis order shall dispose of ITA Nos.344 of 2013, 2, 4, 8, 9, 39to 49 and O51 to 59 oft 2014 as the Tribunal vide one consolidated ordedated 30.5.2013 impugned in these appeals decided the same. However, thefacts are being extracted from ITA No.344 of 2013.|2.ITA No.344 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant undersection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against theconsolidated order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, “the Tribunal’) inITA No.229(ASR)/2013, for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming!following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penaltyimposed under section 271FA on the appellant who is a ‘JointSub Registrar’, specifically when the statutory obligation asregards furnishing of the ‘AIR’ information, as provided for under Section 285BA(1 )(d) is only cast upon the ‘Registrar’ o*Sub Registrar’? 2. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing toappreciate that the delay in furnishing the requisite AIRinformation by the appellant which was initially prompted bybonafide ignorance as regards the ‘Statutory obligation’ undersection 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), whichthereafter on appellant subsequently getting aware as regardsthe same, was further delayed due to ‘multiple reasons’ on thepart of his office, i.e. poor infrastructure which was manned bynegligible staff not savvy with computers, maintenance ofvoluminous records/information in Punjabi that had to be gottranslated in English, absolute absence of any professionalguidance from the superiors or the departmental authorities ofthe State Government, outsourcing of the work of compilingthe soft copies of the information, applying tor TAN No. etc,which in itself suffered from administrative restrictions, strictprocedures, approvals of superior authorities etc. as regardswhich the appellant had neither any say, nor any free hand,therefore in itself constituted a reasonable cause, pursuantwhereto in the light of section 273B no penalty under section271FA for the delay in furnishing the AIR information wasliable to be imposed? 3. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing toappreciate that in the light of bonafide ignorance on the part ofthe appellant as regards the statutory obligation under section285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), the delay infurnishing of requisite information by the appellant who wasworking in a motfusil area with absolutely inadequateinfrastructure, and by virtue of the very nature of his office hadnever been assessed to income tax and thus had no occasion ofavailing assistance of any Chartered Accountant or a Taxconsultant, therefore in the light of section 273B was not liable to be visited with any penalty under section 271FA of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under section 271FA of the Act in the hands of theappellant on the basis of premature observations, findings andinvestigations? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penaltyimposed by the respondent under section 271FA beyond thetime limitation prescribed under section 275(1) (c) of the Act? to be visited with any penalty under section 271FA of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy ofpenalty under section 271FA of the Act in the hands of theappellant on the basis of premature observations, findings andinvestigations? 5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the penaltyimposed by the respondent under section 271FA beyond thetime limitation prescribed under section 275(1) (c) of the Act? 6. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law and acted in violationof the principles of natural justice while disposing of the appealof the appellant vide consolidated order dated 30.5.2013 passedwith respect to 39 appeals pertaining to 10 different appellants,by solely referring to the facts involved in the case of :TheJoint Sub Registrar Bartwala, District Bathinda vs. Directorof Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh (TA No.137(Asr)/2013,and rather bypassing the facts and the grounds of appeal raisedby the appellant in its case, specifically when the same as incomparison to the facts involved in the case relied upon by theTribunal while dismissing the case of the appellant weredifferently placed?” 3A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in ITA No.344 of 2013 may be noticed. The appellantis a Joint Sub Registrar working in the moftusil area of District Bathinda.Under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Act read with Rule 114E of the IncomeTax Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules’), ‘Registrar’ or ‘Sub Registrar'appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 was subjected to astatutory obligation of furnishing Annual Information Return (AIR)pertaining to purchase/sale deed exceeding an amount ofan30 lacs soregistered by him during a year. The said AIR was required to be furnished ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) by the Registrar or the Sub Registrar with the appropriate authority inprescribed Form 61A of the Rules wherein part of the information was to befurnished on computer readable media while remaining part of theinformation was to be delivered in paper form. The appellant — Joint SubRegistrar, Sangat, District Bathinda who was working in a moftusil area ofthe district was not aware of any such statutory obligation by holding theoffice as that of Joint Sub Registrar. Show cause notice was issued to theappellant under section 271FA of the Act on 8.10.2010 and followed byreminder dated 15.11.2000 whereby he was called upon to explain as to whypenalty under section 271FA of the Act be not imposed on him. Theappellant put in appearance. On learning that AIR was to be e-filed, heimmediately applied for TAN No. On 19.10.2010, on receipt of TAN No.,the appellant uploaded the required information. Vide order dated 7.1.2011,Annexure A.1, after considering the matter, the respondent imposed penaltyunder section 271FA of the Act amounting to“a1,50,900/- (i.e.<a100/- perday for 1509 days from 1.9.2006 to 19.10.2010). The appeal filed by theappellant against the order was partly allowed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide order dated 31.1.2013, Annexure A.2,whereby the penalty was to be recomputed by taking the period of detaultw.e.f 1.12.2006 instead of 31.8.2006 onwards. The appellant filed furtherappeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.5.2013, Annexure, A.3, theTribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant. 4We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5]Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assesseehad acted bonafide and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of Section ' 4We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5]Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assesseehad acted bonafide and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of Section ' 2/3B of the Act. A reference was made to judgment reported asPricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited vs. CIT and another,(2012) 348ITR 306 (SC). In ITA No.344 of 2013, it was also urged that Joint SubRegistrar, Sangat could not have been penalized as the provision of Section285BA of the Act uses the expression ‘Registrar’ or ‘Sub-Registrar’. Insuch circumstances, the levy of penalty was bad. Additionally, in ITA No.47of 2014 (The Sub Registrar, Malout, District Muktsar vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh), It was contended that the requisiteinformation was supplied manually and no notice under section 285BA(4)of the Act was issued that the information which was supplied wasdefective. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any noticeissued under section 285BA(4) of the Act, the levy of penalty under sectionQTILKA oft the Act was not called for. onAfter hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. TdSection 285BA was inserted in the Act by Finance Act 2003with effect from 1.4.2004. However, Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 substitutednew provision in place of old provision with effect from 1.4.2005 in thefollowing terms:- +2RS5BA.(1) Any person, being— (a) an assessee; or (b) the prescribed person in the case of an office of Government;OT (c) a local authority or other public body or association; or (d) the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of theRegistration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908); or (e) the registering authority empowered to register motor vehiclesunder Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988); or({) the Post Master General as referred to in clause (j) of section 2of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898); or (¢) the Collector referred to in clause (c) of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); or (h) the recognised stock exchange referred to in clause (1) ofsection 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956(42 of 1956); or (1) an officer of the Reserve Bank of India, constituted undersection 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); OT (J) a depository referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) ofsection 2 of the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996),who is responsible for registering, or, maintaining books ofaccount or other document containing a record of anyspecified financial transaction, under any law for the timebeing in force, shall furnish an annual information return inrespect of such specified financial transaction which isregistered or recorded by him during any financial yearbeginning on or after the Ist day of April, 2004 andinformation relating to which is relevant and required for thepurposes of this Act, to the prescribed income-tax authority orsuch other authority or agency as may be prescribed. (2) The annual information return referred to in sub-section(1) shall be furnished within the prescribed timeafter the endof such financial year, in such form and manner (including ona floppy, diskette, magnetic cartridge tape, CD-ROM or anycomputer readable media) as may be prescribed,(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), “specified financialtransaction” means any— (a) transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods orproperty or right or interest in a property; or(b) transaction for rendering any service; or (c) transaction under a works contract; or (d) transaction by way of an investment made or an expendi-ture incurred; or (e) transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit,which may be prescribed Providedthat the Board may prescribe different values fordifferent transactions in respect of different persons havingregard to the nature of such transaction : (a) transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods orproperty or right or interest in a property; or(b) transaction for rendering any service; or (c) transaction under a works contract; or (d) transaction by way of an investment made or an expendi-ture incurred; or (e) transaction for taking or accepting any loan or deposit,which may be prescribed Providedthat the Board may prescribe different values fordifferent transactions in respect of different persons havingregard to the nature of such transaction : Provided furtherthat the value or, as the case may be, theaggregate value of such transactions during a financial year soprescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (4) Where the prescribed income-tax authority considers thatthe annual information return furnished under sub-section (1)is defective, he may intimate the defect to the person who hasfurnished such return and give him an opportunity ofrectifying the defect within a period of one month from thedate of such intimation or within such further period which,on an application made in this behalf, the prescribed income-tax authority may, 1n his discretion, allow; and if the defect isnot rectified within the said period of one month or, as thecase may be, the further period so allowed, then,notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision ofthis Act, such return shall be treated as an invalid return andthe provisions of this Act shall apply as 1f such person hadfailed to furnish the annual information return. (5) Where a person who is required to furnish an annualinformation return under sub-section (1) has not furnished thesame within the prescribed time, the prescribed income-taxauthority may serve upon such person a notice requiring himto furnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty daysfrom the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish theannual information return within the time specified in thenotice.’ |Sub section (1) provides that any person specified in clauses (a)to (j) therein who 1s responsible for registering or maintaining books ofaccount or other documents containing a record of any specified financialtransaction, under any law for the time being in force, shall furnish an ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) annual information report in respect of such specified financial transactionto the prescribed income tax authority or such other authority or agency asmay be prescribed. The return 1s required to be furnished relating totransactions which have been registered or recorded on or after Ist April2004. Under sub section (2), the annual information return shall befurnished in the prescribed format and manner and also within theprescribed time after the end of the financial year. Sub section (3) defines the “specified financial transaction” to meanany transaction of purchase, sale or exchange of goods or property or rightor interest in a property or transaction for rendering any service ortransaction under a works contract or transaction by way of an investmentmade or expenditure incurred or a transaction for taking or accepting anyloan or deposit as may be prescribed. It has also been provided that theBoard may prescribe different monetary values of different transactions inrespect of different persons. The said sub section further provides that thevalue or the aggregate value of such transaction during a financial year soprescribed shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. By virtue of sub section (4), the defective annual information returncan be rectified by the person furnishing it under sub section (1) to theprescribed income tax authority. An intimation of the defect and opportunityto remove the same shall be provided by the said authority. The period forremoving the defect would be one month from the date of intimation or anyfurther period which the prescribed income tax authority may allow. In theevent of failure to cure the defect, such return shall be treated to be invalidand all consequences under the Act shall follow as if no such return had been filed. By virtue of sub section (4), the defective annual information returncan be rectified by the person furnishing it under sub section (1) to theprescribed income tax authority. An intimation of the defect and opportunityto remove the same shall be provided by the said authority. The period forremoving the defect would be one month from the date of intimation or anyfurther period which the prescribed income tax authority may allow. In theevent of failure to cure the defect, such return shall be treated to be invalidand all consequences under the Act shall follow as if no such return had been filed. According to sub section (5), where any person who 1s required tofurnish an annual information return has not furnished the same within theprescribed time, the prescribed income tax authority may serve upon suchperson a notice requiring him to furnish such return within a period notexceeding sixty days from the date of service of such notice.Q A notification has been issued on 1.12.2004 prescribing Rule114E relating to furnishing of annual information return. The form andmanner in which the annual information return shall be furnished has beenprescribed in this rule. Clause (2) of the Table prescribes the persons whoshall furnish annual information return. The nature of transactions 1sspecified 1n corresponding entry of Clause (3) thereof. Under Rule 114E,such return shall be furnished in Form No.61A and shall be verified in themanner indicated therein. It has also been provided that annual informationreturn be furnished on or before 31[St]of August immediately following thefinancial year in which transaction 1s registered or recorded. 10.)The Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 has inserted a new section271FA providing for penalty for failure to furnish the annual informationreturn. It reads thus:- COTIKA,If a person who is required to furnish an annualinformation return, as required under sub-section (1) of|sectionISSBA, fails to furnish such return within the time prescribedunder that sub-section, the income-tax authority prescribedunder the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay,by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for every dayduring which the failure continues.” ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) The said section provides that where any person who 1s required to furnishthe annual information return fails to furnish the same within the prescribedtime, the prescribed income tax authority may direct that such person shallpay by way of penalty a sum of one hundred rupees for every day duringwhich the failure continues. However, under Section 273B of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, no penalty under Section 271AA of the Act would beimposed where assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for thefailure| 11.Learned counsel for the assessee had argued the case of SubRegistrar, Bariwala, District Bathinda as a lead case before the Tribunal andpleaded that all other cases are similar and identical. However, in the case ofSub Registrar, Muktsar, an additional plea was raised to substantiatereasonable cause within the ambit of Section 273B of the Act. Thus, weproceed to examine cases of Sub Registrar, Bariwala and Muktsar inaddition to case of Sub Registrar, Sangat in which the main order is beingwritten. 12.The findings in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala which wereaccepted to be identical to all other cases recorded by the Tribunal in itsorder dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.3 read thus:- “15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of thecase. In the present case, the main argument of the learned counsel forthe assessee was that the assessee was ignorant of law i.e. aboutsection 285BA of the Act. He argued that the income tax authorityhas not served any notices on the assessee and when the notice wasserved, 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 285BA of theAct, which was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f 12.The findings in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala which wereaccepted to be identical to all other cases recorded by the Tribunal in itsorder dated 30.5.2013, Annexure A.3 read thus:- “15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of thecase. In the present case, the main argument of the learned counsel forthe assessee was that the assessee was ignorant of law i.e. aboutsection 285BA of the Act. He argued that the income tax authorityhas not served any notices on the assessee and when the notice wasserved, 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 285BA of theAct, which was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) 11 1.4.2005, it is not the case that this section has been introduced forthe first time by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. Prior to its substitutionsection 285BA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f 1.4.2004where any assessee who enters into any financial transaction, as maybe prescribed, with any other person, shall furnish, within theprescribed time, an annual information return in such form andmanner, aS may be prescribed in respect of such financial transactionentered into by him during any previous year. Rule 114A to LI4Eprescribes such return to be furnished in Form No.61A and shall beverified in the manner indicated therein. At item No.6 of the said rule,return shall be furnished on or before 31[St]August, immediatelyfollowing the financial year in which the transaction is registered orrecorded. Section 285BA(5) is reproduced for the sake of clarity asunder: ‘Section 285BA(5) Where a person who is required to furnish an annualinformation return under sub section (1) has not furnished thesame within the prescribed time, the prescribed income taxauthority may serve upon such person a notice requiring him tofurnish such return within a period not exceeding sixty daysfrom the date of service of such notice and he shall furnish theannual information return within the time specified in thenotice. 15.1 The learned counsel for the assessee has taken the shelter ofsection 285BA(5) of the Act which is reproduced hereinabove that,the income tax authority is under a mandate to serve the notice to theassessee in case annual information return is not filed for yearstogether after insertion of the section by the Finance (No.2) Act 2003w.e.f 1.4.2004 initially and thereafter by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004w.e.f 1.4.2005 mentioned hereinabove. Whereas this is not a case, thewords used by the statute in section 285BA(5) gives option for theincome tax authority to serve notice which may or may not be servedupon. The word ‘may’ used in section 285BA(5) clearly indicates theoption for the income tax authority. It is not obligatory on the income ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) tax authority to serve such notice. Therefore, interpretation has to beStrictly construed. There is no ambiguity in the same. The courtscannot add or amend and by construction cannot make up thedeficiencies in the Act. It is contrary to all rules of constructionunless the provision as it stands is meaningless or having a doubttulmeaning. We are not entitled to usurp legislative function disguise ofinterpretation. The courts are meant to interpret law, cannot legislateit. Our views find support from the judgment of Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Union of India and others v. Dharmendra!Textiles Processors and others reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277. In thepresent case, issuance and Service of notice under section 285BA(5)is not obligatory on the income tax authority. Therefore, argumentsmade by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, arerejected to this extent. 15.2 As regard the notice dated 20.11.2006 issued by CIT(CIB),Chandigarh to the assessee, it is surprising that how the said noticehas been in the possession of the assessee. Nothing has been broughton record by the learned counsel for the assessee in this respect.Reasonable presumption is made that this notice has also been servedupon the assessee dated 20.11.2006 and which has not been compliedwith. As per remand report, as argued by the learned DR and alsorecord of DIT(CIB) which has been verified by the learned counselthat various notices have been served 1.e. on 20.11.2006, 4.4.2007,11.1.2008, 12.12.2008, 21.5.2009, 20.1.2010 and 12.3.2010. All theSaid seven notices remained uncomplied with, at the last knownaddress given by the assessee which is as under:-Sub Registrar Bariwala Muktsar 15.3. Penalty order dated 22.12.2010 has been served on the assesseeis not in dispute against which the assessee filed appeal on 31.1.2011before the learned CIT(A) Bathinda. The learned CIT(A)’s orderdated 14.12.2012 has also been served upon the assessee on 9.1.2013at the same address has also not been disputed by the learned counsel ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) for the assessee. Therefore, the arguments made by the learnedcounsel for the assessee that one notice dated 20.11.2006 havingmentioned wrong district is part of the paper book cannot prove thatthe notice dated 20.11.2006 and other six notices as mentionedhereinabove have not been issued and served on the assessee|Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee isrejected that no notice under section 285BA(5) has_ beeissued/serviced upon the assessee even in remand proceedings whenall notices were confronted. Therefore, the reliance placed by thelearned counsel for the assessee on the decisions of various courts oflaw on service of notice cannot be made applicable in the present caseand cannot help the assessee, 15.4 As regards the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in thecase of Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited vs. Director of IncomeTax (supra) [(2011) 338 ITR 167], the learned CIT(A) has taken fullcognizance of the said decision and has directed the CIT(CIB) to re-compute the default w.e.f 1.12.2006 instead of 31.8.2006 for theassessment year 2006-07 and thereafter in the following years hasrightly confirmed the default being the first advisory letter issued on20.11.2006 in view of our findings hereinabove. 15.5 As regards the reasonable cause, as mentioned hereinabove, thelearned CIT(A) has taken cognizance in the case of Patan NagrikSahakari Bank Limited vs. Director of Income Tax (supra) decided bythe Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. But at the same time, we may referthat ignorance of law is not an excuse, aS per our findingshereinabove and also as per decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat HighCourt in the case of Pattan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited (supra) andthe Sub Registrar cannot be an exception to the law laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove. It is settled law thatignorance of law is of no excuse, as decided by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Limited vs,State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (1979) 118 ITR 326(SC).” A perusal of the above findings shows that inspite of having ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M)|4sent several letters to the appellant between the period from 20.11.2006 to12.3.2010, the requisite information was not furnished by him within theStipulated period. The plea of ignorance of law has also been negatived bythe Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal being based on record, the samecould not be held to be erroneous. A perusal of the above findings shows that inspite of having ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M)|4sent several letters to the appellant between the period from 20.11.2006 to12.3.2010, the requisite information was not furnished by him within theStipulated period. The plea of ignorance of law has also been negatived bythe Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal being based on record, the samecould not be held to be erroneous. 14. |Further, the Tribunal on the basis of submissions made bylearned counsel for the assessees had decided the appeals of Sub Registrar,Muktsar for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 in para 17 of the order. Itwas noticed that the facts in these appeals were also similar to facts in SubRegistrar, Bariwala with an additional fact that the Sub Registrar, Muktsarhad filed the Annual Information Return for the assessment year 2005-06on 8.3.2006 after a delay of 97 days which shows that the assessee was verymuch aware of the provisions of Section 285BA of the Act, whereas for theassessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, it was filed on 3.11.2010. It wasconcluded that the assessee was a habitual defaulter in the absence of anySatisfactory explanation having been furnished by him. No illegality orperversity could be pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by theTribunal. 15,Still further, though appeals in the cases of Sub Registrar,Sangat, District Bathinda were not argued separately being identical on factswith the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala, the question whether there existsreasonable or sufficient cause in terms of Section 2/73B of the Act is question of fact dependent upon appreciation of the material and the plearaised by the assessee. In the present case, the assessing authority onappreciation of material had concluded that the filer of the returns washabitual defaulter without any concern or respect for the law. The CIT(A) ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) on appeal by the assessee had upheld the aforesaid finding and which orderwas confirmed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee havingaccepted before the Tribunal that the facts being similar to the case of SubRegistrar, Bariwala, the findings of fact recorded by the authorities belowbeing based on record are affirmed. 16. Furthermore, in respect of proposed question No.6, perusal oforder of the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal had adjudicated 39appeals by one consolidated order. Learned counsel for the assessees ShriP.N.Arora, advocate who was representing the appellant had categoricallysubmitted before the Tribunal that the case of ‘Sub Registrar’ Bariwala,District Muktsar was being argued first and thereafter stated that the facts ofall other appeals were identical and therefore, his submissions in that casemay be applied in all other appeals as well. This fact is established fromreading of following paras of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.5.2013:- “4. The learned counsel for the assessee Mr. P.N.Arora,advocate argued the appeals in the case of the Sub Registrar,Bariwala first and thereafter argued that since the facts in allother appeals are identical, his arguments shall be identical andbe applied in all other appeals mentioned hereinabove.” “18. As regards other appeals in ITA No.135 and 136(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Doda, in ITA Nos.141 to 143(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lakhewali, in ITANos.144 to 148 (Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, MaurMandi, in ITA Nos.229 to 232(Asr)/2013 in the case of SubRegistrar, Sangat, in ITA Nos.233 to 237(Asr)/2013 in the caseof Sub Registrar, Lambi and in ITA Nos.238 to 241(Asr)/2013in the case of Sub Registrar, Malout, in ITA Nos.242 to 246(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Talwandi and in ITANo.247 and 248(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar,Rampura Phul, the facts in the present appeals have been “18. As regards other appeals in ITA No.135 and 136(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Doda, in ITA Nos.141 to 143(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Lakhewali, in ITANos.144 to 148 (Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, MaurMandi, in ITA Nos.229 to 232(Asr)/2013 in the case of SubRegistrar, Sangat, in ITA Nos.233 to 237(Asr)/2013 in the caseof Sub Registrar, Lambi and in ITA Nos.238 to 241(Asr)/2013in the case of Sub Registrar, Malout, in ITA Nos.242 to 246(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar, Talwandi and in ITANo.247 and 248(Asr)/2013 in the case of Sub Registrar,Rampura Phul, the facts in the present appeals have been argued by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arorato be identical and also the learned DR has argued that the factsbeing identical as in the case of Sub Registrar, Bariwala in ITANo.137 to 140(Asr)2013 and after perusal of the records in theSaid appeals, we find that the facts in the said appeals areidentical to the facts of the case of Sub Registrar Bariwala andMuktsar. Therefore, following the same we find no infirmity inthe orders of the learned CIT(A). Our order will be identicallyapplicable to the facts of the present cases before us in all theassessees of all the years. Accordingly, all the appeals of theassessees in all the years are dismissed.” The plausible explanations in terms of Section 273B of the Act in the casesof Sub Registrar, Talwandi Saboo, Sub Registrar, Lambi, Sub Registrar,Malout, Sub Registrar, Maur Mandi, Sub Registrar, Doda and SubRegistrar, Rampura Phul are also similar and therefore, the levy of penaltyunder Section 271FA of the Act cannot be faulted.17.|The Joint Sub Registrar is also the prescribed authority for thesub-district in terms of sections 6 and 7 of the Registration Act, 1908. In theabsence of any factual foundation having been laid before the AssessingOfficer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty on theJoint Sub Registrar, Sangat, the said plea raised for the first time before theHigh Court would not be permissible. Equally, the plea of no notice havingbeen issued under Section 285BA(4) of the Act in ITA No.47 of 2014 toSub Registrar, Malout loses significance in the absence of such contentionhaving been raised before the authorities below. Question No.5 also doesnot arise aS no such argument regarding action being beyond limitationunder Section 275(1)(c) of the Act was ever raised before any of theauthorities below. 18.Adverting to the judgment in Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. ITA No.344 of 2013 (O&M) Limited'scase (Supra), the issue before the Apex Court was relating to levyof penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Supreme Court onappreciation of facts therein had concluded that the tax audit report does notsuggest that there was any concealment of income. There was also noquestion of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It was furthernoticed that the action of the assessee was bonafide and due to inadvertenterror for which no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could beimposed. The factual matrix being different in the present appeals, thelearned counsel for the appellant cannot derive any benefit therefrom. 19.In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises,Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. Since the appeals have beendismissed on merits, no order is being passed on the applications forcondonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filingthe appeals, which are left open.| (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge July 21, 2014;-%; (Jaspal Singh)Judge