Sub Registrar, Sri.V.G.Cleetus vs Director Of Income Tax ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7569 Ker

W.P.(C).No.674/14
                                     1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
    FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 674 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

              SUB REGISTRAR, SRI.V.G.CLEETUS
              SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VADANAPPALLY-680614

              BY ADV SRI.A.KUMAR



RESPONDENTS:

      1       DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE)
              K K TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, M G ROAD, COCHIN-682011

      2       THE UNION OF INDIA
              MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-
              110001,REP BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE

              BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX




       THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON 14.07.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.674/14
                                         2




                           ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          W.P.(c).No.674 of 2014
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                    Dated this the 14th day of July, 2023

                                   JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

A.Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, order or direction setting aside Ext.P5 order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench to reconsider the appeal ITA No. 458/Coch/2013 for the assessment year 2011-12 filed by the petitioner afresh on merits.

Or in the alternative to prayer (A) B.Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, order or direction setting aside Ext. P2 order passed by the 1 st respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner, who was the Sub Registrar at the SRO,

Vadanappally is aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under W.P.(C).No.674/14

Section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the premise of

non filing of a return, despite the petitioner having furnished

explanation and shown sufficient and reasonable cause. It is

submitted that under Section 285BA(1)(b) of the Income Tax

Act, the petitioner is required to furnish Annual Information

Return (AIR) in the prescribed form to the Income Tax

Authority in relation to certain specified financial transactions.

Under sub section 2 of Section 285BA, the information is to be

furnished after the end of the financial year in a CD-ROM or

any computer readable media.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner assumed charge as Sub

Registrar at Vadanappally on 12.7.2011. The due date for

furnishing of the report (AIR) for the year 2010-11 was

31.8.2011 for the year ending 31.3.2011. The petitioner was

under the bona fide impression that the information would

have already been submitted by his predecessor. On receipt of

a show cause notice to appear on 11.1.2013, the petitioner

made enquires and he took up the matter with M/s Karvy Data

Management Services Ltd., an approved agency with whom the

Government departments entrust the work of filing. It is only W.P.(C).No.674/14

when the petitioner received an intimation from the 1 st

respondent that the petitioner came to know that the data has

not been filed. A copy of the data was again generated and

handed over to the said agency and uploaded on 6.2.2013.

5. It is submitted that despite the petitioner expressing his

regret, the 1st respondent passed an order of penalty. The

petitioner preferred Exhibit P4 appeal before the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench and the Tribunal, on the

basis of earlier orders passed in ITA 180/Coch/13 dated

18.7.2013, came to the conclusion that Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, even though the 1 st

respondent itself has in its order indicated that appeal lies to

the Tribunal. The Tribunal also having indicated that the

CIT(A) is equivalent in rank and that the remedy may not be

efficacious, the petitioner approached this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section

271FA of the Income Tax Act provides that penalty may be

imposed in case of non-compliance with the provisions of

Section 285BA(1)(b)of the Act. It is submitted that Section W.P.(C).No.674/14

273B of the Act provides that in a case where it can be shown

that the delay in providing the details as required under

Section 285BA(1) was on account of a reasonable cause, then

the penalty is liable to be totally waived. It is, therefore,

contended that the refusal on the part of the respondents to

consider the reasonable cause shown by the petitioner and

imposing penalty under Section 271FA is illegal and untenable.

It is further submitted that the appeal preferred by the

petitioner has also been disposed of without a proper

consideration. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner had submitted the appeal before

the Tribunal as specifically stated in the order and that the

refusal on the part of the Tribunal to consider the appeal was,

therefore, unjustified.

7. A statement has been placed on record by the respondents

stating that ignorance of law is not an excuse and that though

it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was the Sub Registrar

who took charge on 12.7.2011, no reason whatsoever has been

shown for not filing the Annual Information Return in time. It

is submitted that the fact of non-filing of the return in time is W.P.(C).No.674/14

admitted. There is no requirement for any element of mens rea

in the light of the specific language of the provisions. It is

further stated that the contention raised by the petitioner that

he was prevented from submitting the return in time has been

specifically considered at paragraph 2 of Exhibit P2 and it was

held that the reason stated by the Sub Registrar cannot be

treated as sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in filing

the returns. It is further contended that no appeal lies to the

Tribunal from an order under Section 271FA.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the

specific provisions of the statute, I am of the opinion that the

contentions raised by the petitioner that the issue of

reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act has not been

considered by the respondents cannot be accepted. The

respondents had specifically considered the contention raised

by the petitioner and had held that the reasons stated by the

petitioner do not constitute a reasonable cause to excuse their

delay of 525 days in submitting the returns. It is also clear

that though the provision permits the imposition of Rs.500/-

per day as penalty only Rs.100/- per day has been inflicted. W.P.(C).No.674/14

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the

prayers as sought for in the writ petition are not liable to be

granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj W.P.(C).No.674/14

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 674/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 6/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT

P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271FA BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 20/5/2013

P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 20/5/2013

P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 12/6/2013

P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD 13/9/2013

True copy

PS to Judge