JOINT SUB REGISTRAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of IT Appeal Nos. 344 of 2013, 2, 4, 8, 9, 39 to 49 and 51 to 59 of 2014 as the Tribunal vide one consolidated order dt. 30th May, 2013 impugned in these appeals decided the same. However, the facts are being extracted from IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013. IT Appeal No. 344 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the consolidated order dt. 30th May, 2013, Annex. A. 3 passed by Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal) in ITA No. 229/Asr/2013, for the asst. yr. 2006 -07, claiming following substantial questions of law:

(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the delay in furnishing the requisite AIR information by the appellant which was initially prompted by bona fide ignorance as regards the 'statutory obligation' under s. 285BA(1) (i.e. a new statutory provision), which thereafter on appellant subsequently getting aware as regards the same, was further delayed due to multiple reasons' on the part of his office, i.e., poor infrastructure which was manned by negligible staff not savvy with computers, maintenance of voluminous records/information in Punjabi that had to be got translated in English, absolute absence of any professional guidance from the superiors or the Departmental authorities of the State Government, outsourcing of the work of compiling the soft copies of the information, applying for TAN No. etc. which in itself suffered from administrative restrictions, strict procedures, approvals of superior authorities etc. as regards which the appellant had neither any say, nor any free hand, therefore in itself constituted a reasonable cause, pursuant whereto in the light of s. 273B no penalty under s. 271FA for the delay in furnishing the AIR information was liable to be imposed?

(3.) WHETHER the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under s. 271FA of the Act in the hands of the appellant on the basis of premature observations, findings and investigations?