Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) confirmed on Sub Registrar for non compliance of statutory notice u/s 133(6) calling for information of immovable property.
In a recent judgment, ITAT Lucknow has confirmed penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 levied on the Sub Registrar for non compliance of statutory notice u/s 133(6) calling for information of immovable property registered.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4361 (2024) (12) abcaus.in ITAT
In the instant case, the Sub-Registrar (the appellant) had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The Sub Registrar was requested by the Addl. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) to furnish information to the Income Tax Officer vide statutory notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, despite sending reminders the Sub Registrar did not make any compliance to the notice and did not send the required information.
In view of the non-compliance, a show cause notice was sent to the Sub-registrar initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271A(2)(c) of the Act.
In response to the said SCN issued, the Sub-Registrar vide his reply questioned the scope of section 133(6) of the Act in calling the information from the office of Sub-Registrar and applicability of the provisions of section 133(6) on him by submitting a copy of the letter circulated by the Inspector General Stamps and Registration, U.P.. In the said letter it was claimed that the Sub-registrar is not covered under the definition of “person” and secondly that the information can not be sought /asked under section 133(6) of the Act.
The Sub-Registrar was however given one more opportunity to show cause. In response to which the Sub-registrar attended the office and submitted that it was not proper to consider the Sub-Registrar within the definition of “person” and it was not legal to call for the information of the sale deed between Rs. 5 Lakhs to Rs. 10 Lakhs under section 133(6) of the Act.
The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that so far as the definition of “person” is concerned, apart from the inclusive definition of the word “person” in section 2(3) of the Act, the term “person: also find mention in other provisions of the Act, i.e. section 192.
The AO also observed that all the sub-registrars are having Tax Deduction Account Number (TAN) and deducting TDS on salaries as per the provisions of section 192 of the Act, on similar reasoning they are includible under “person” in any other provisions of the Act, without prejudice to their being covered u/s 133(6) of the Act.
Further, the AO also noted that CBDT Instruction File No. 291/17/2012-IT(Inv-IV)Part-I/826 dated 13.08.2013 clarified that section 13(6) empowers the collection of information from Registrars/Sub-registrars/Stamp Registration Officer.
The AO also noted that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that in case of requesting information from Urban-Cooperative Banks, action of the Department in seeking to collect information is in accordance with the relevant provisions.
In view of the non compliance on the part of the Sub Registrar, an order was passed levying penalty u/s 272A(2)(C) of the Act.
Aggrieved, the Sub-Registrar filed appeal with CIT(A) and inter alia contended that it was regularly furnishing information regarding specified financial transactions u/s 285BA of the Act and was not obliged to provide the information for transaction for value between Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs.
The CIT(A) observed that the purpose of the while the section 285BA is regarding obligation cast upon for filing AIR for specified financial transactions, section 133(6) pertains to power of the AO to call for information from any person. Thus the purpose of both the sections are different and the obligation cast upon in one can not be a reason to not to fulfil the obligation in other section.
It was also contended by the Sub-Registrar that as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court it was agreed that the Income Tax Department shall withdraw all penal proceedings and waive the penalty imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 133(6) against the Sub-registrars, if they file form no. 61A.
The CIT(A) observed that in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, a meeting of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Lucknow and Inspector General (Stamps and Registration) U.P. in which it was decided that the Sub-registrar shall provide the information of relating to immovable properties of Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs in the manner information available. The meeting concluded with the resolution that information shall be provided but that was without prejudice to the legality of the applicability of penal provisions for non compliance of notice u/s 133(6).
Before the Tribunal, no representation was made by the Sub-Registrar Office.
The Tribunal observed that it was not in dispute that the notice was issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. It was also not in dispute that the assessee did not make any compliance to the aforesaid notice. Nothing was brought from either side to persuade to take a view different from the view taken by CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order.
Considering the continued absence from the hearings in ITAT, despite having been issued several notices, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT upheld the order of CIT(A) being just and fair and in accordance with law having regard to facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- High Court grants bail to accused of alleged GST evasion of Rs. 120 crores
- TDS u/s 194IC is applicable for payment under JDA to transferor holding leasehold rights
- On invoking Section 69A burden of proof lies on AO to establish source of unexplained money
- When order u/s 263 is quashed, assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 has no legs to stand
- When interest income offered on accrual basis, TDS on maturity can not be disallowed
(c) confirmed on Sub Registrar for non compliance of notice u/s 133(6)){kind=link}