Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : This bunch of f ive appeals has been preferred by the assessee against the consol idated order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar Camp at Palampur (hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals) dated 30.1.2017 relating to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, agitating levy of penalty u/s 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ) for delay in f i l ing the Annual Information Report (AIR) u/s 285BA of the Act, regarding transaction of sale and purchase of the property came for registration before the Sub Registrar as required. Since the issue involved in al l the appeals is identical , they were heard together and are being disposed of f by this consol idated for the sake of convenience.
2. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties. The Ld. counsel for assessee has demonstrated before us that the assessee had fi led manual information before the competent authority. He, for this respect, relied upon the copies of various letter/communications held between the assessee and the income-tax authorit ies. The assessee from time to t ime supplied manual information to DIT (Director of Income Tax) (CIB), Chandigarh and also the letters showing the submissions of the information NSDL. It has been submitted that the assessee could not upload the data electronical ly due to some technical problem. It has further been submitted that staff of the assessee was not having technical know-how in this respect. However, the assessee never defaulted or intended to cause any delay in f i l ing the required information and that the assessee made every ef fort to comply with al l instructions issued by the department in this respect. He, therefore, has submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271FA on the assessee was not justi f ied.
3. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee had defaulted in providing required information within the st ipulated period, hence penalty had been correctly levied by the income-tax authorities.
4. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also gone through the records. The assessee has placed on record as many as twelve copies of letters which shows that the assessee furnished manual information to the concerned authorit ies and also sent the same to the National agency NSDL (National Securit ies Limited). The assessee has also explained about the di f f iculty in uploading the required information electronically. In our view, the delay for not uploading the requisite information electronical ly, as al leged by the income-tax authorit ies, cannot be said to be on account of any intentional or del iberate or negl igent act on the part of the assessee. After perusing the record, we are satisf ied that the assessee made suff icient ef forts to supply the required information to the income-tax authorit ies. Hence, keeping in overal l c ircumstances into consideration, we do not deem it a f i t case to levy of penalty u/s 271FA of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty levied for the impugned assessment years on the assessee u/s 271FA is ordered to be deleted.
4. In the result, al l the appeals f i led by the assessee are al lowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on ---- February, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 23rd February, 2018 *Rati* Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh