Is there any High Court authority the department can use against me on a s.271FA penalty for filing Form 61A late?
Yes, and it should be known before the appeal is filed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a sub-registrar's appeal against a daily s.271FA penalty for late annual information returns, holding that no substantial question of law arose — including on the question, expressly raised, whether penalty is exigible in the absence of mens rea. But the judgment gives no reasoning of its own: it dismisses by following an earlier decision of the same Court in connected appeals decided on 21 July 2014.
Decided by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Fateh Deep Singh J) on 2014-09-15, reported as ITA No. 151 of 2014 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), arising from ITA Nos. 130-134(ASR)/2013 (ITAT Amritsar), assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. It bears on section 271FA, section 285BA, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty and Appeals matters.
The reported decisions on s.271FA are overwhelmingly on the taxpayer's side, because those are the ones that get written up; this is the other side of the line and it is a High Court. Its practical importance is threefold. First, it establishes that a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under s.6 of the Registration Act 1908 is squarely a reporting person under what is now s.285BA(1)(d) read with rule 114E, and that a government office is not outside the penalty. Second, it shows that the absence of mens rea was argued and got nowhere at the admission stage, so an appeal built on that alone is unlikely to be entertained in that jurisdiction. Third, and this cuts the other way, the judgment decides nothing on its own reasoning: it records that the Tribunal disposed of 39 appeals by a single consolidated order of 30 May 2013 and that similar appeals, led by Joint Sub Registrar Sangat, District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh, ITA No. 344 of 2013, had already been dismissed on 21 July 2014. Anyone relying on it, on either side, is relying on that unreported earlier decision at one remove. Note also that the penalty here was levied at Rs.100 per day, the figure then in force; the current s.271FA charges five hundred rupees a day and one thousand rupees a day after a s.285BA(5) notice, so the exposure on the same facts today would be several times larger.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Act read with rule 114E of the Income-tax Rules 1962, a Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of the Registration Act 1908 was under a statutory obligation to furnish an Annual Information Report of purchase or sale deeds exceeding thirty lakh rupees registered by him during a year, in the prescribed Form 61A. The appellant, the Sub Registrar of Muktsar, furnished returns for various years but did not do so within the prescribed period. On account of the delayed furnishing, the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh imposed a penalty of Rs.100 per day in respect of all the financial years by order dated 22 December 2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 by order dated 14 December 2012. The Tribunal at Amritsar dismissed the further appeal by a consolidated order dated 30 May 2013 disposing of 39 appeals, and the assessee appealed to the High Court under section 260A raising three questions: whether he was liable to penalty under section 271FA in the absence of mens rea; whether the quantum of penalty was justified on the peculiar facts; and whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse and contrary to record.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court recorded that the Tribunal had decided 39 appeals by one consolidated order dated 30 May 2013, that the present appeal was one of them, and that similar appeals against that order, bearing ITA No. 344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and connected cases, had already been decided against the appellants and dismissed on 21 July 2014. In view of that, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal stood dismissed; the appeal having been dismissed on merits, no order was required on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which was left open (paras 4 and 5).
The Court gave no reasoning of its own on the three questions framed. Having heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record, it proceeded on the single ground that the order under appeal was the Tribunal's consolidated order of 30 May 2013, that appeals against that same order had already been dismissed by the same Court on 21 July 2014 in ITA No. 344 of 2013 and connected cases, and that it therefore followed that no substantial question of law arose. The mens rea question, the quantum question and the perversity question are recorded in paragraph 1 as the questions claimed and are not addressed again.
In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal stands dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is left open.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes, and it should be known before the appeal is filed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a sub-registrar's appeal against a daily s.271FA penalty for late annual information returns, holding that no substantial question of law arose — including on the question, expressly raised, whether penalty is exigible in the absence of mens rea. But the judgment gives no reasoning of its own: it dismisses by following an earlier decision of the same Court in connected appeals decided on 21 July 2014. This was decided by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Fateh Deep Singh J) and bears on section 271FA, section 285BA, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 151 of 2014 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), arising from ITA Nos. 130-134(ASR)/2013 (ITAT Amritsar), assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The reported decisions on s.271FA are overwhelmingly on the taxpayer's side, because those are the ones that get written up; this is the other side of the line and it is a High Court. Its practical importance is threefold. First, it establishes that a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under s.6 of the Registration Act 1908 is squarely a reporting person under what is now s.285BA(1)(d) read with rule 114E, and that a government office is not outside the penalty. Second, it shows that the absence of mens rea was argued and got nowhere at the admission stage, so an appeal built on that alone is unlikely to be entertained in that jurisdiction. Third, and this cuts the other way, the judgment decides nothing on its own reasoning: it records that the Tribunal disposed of 39 appeals by a single consolidated order of 30 May 2013 and that similar appeals, led by Joint Sub Registrar Sangat, District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh, ITA No. 344 of 2013, had already been dismissed on 21 July 2014. Anyone relying on it, on either side, is relying on that unreported earlier decision at one remove. Note also that the penalty here was levied at Rs.100 per day, the figure then in force; the current s.271FA charges five hundred rupees a day and one thousand rupees a day after a s.285BA(5) notice, so the exposure on the same facts today would be several times larger. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not run a s.271FA appeal on the absence of mens rea alone, at least in Punjab and Haryana; run it on reasonable cause under s.273B with evidence, which is the ground on which these penalties are actually deleted.
Under section 285BA(1)(d) of the Act read with rule 114E of the Income-tax Rules 1962, a Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under section 6 of the Registration Act 1908 was under a statutory obligation to furnish an Annual Information Report of purchase or sale deeds exceeding thirty lakh rupees registered by him during a year, in the prescribed Form 61A. The appellant, the Sub Registrar of Muktsar, furnished returns for various years but did not do so within the prescribed period. On account of the delayed furnishing, the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh imposed a penalty of Rs.100 per day in respect of all the financial years by order dated 22 December 2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 by order dated 14 December 2012. The Tribunal at Amritsar dismissed the further appeal by a consolidated order dated 30 May 2013 disposing of 39 appeals, and the assessee appealed to the High Court under section 260A raising three questions: whether he was liable to penalty under section 271FA in the absence of mens rea; whether the quantum of penalty was justified on the peculiar facts; and whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse and contrary to record. The matter was decided on 2014-09-15 by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Fateh Deep Singh J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed. The Court recorded that the Tribunal had decided 39 appeals by one consolidated order dated 30 May 2013, that the present appeal was one of them, and that similar appeals against that order, bearing ITA No. 344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and connected cases, had already been decided against the appellants and dismissed on 21 July 2014. In view of that, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal stood dismissed; the appeal having been dismissed on merits, no order was required on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which was left open (paras 4 and 5).
The Court gave no reasoning of its own on the three questions framed. Having heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record, it proceeded on the single ground that the order under appeal was the Tribunal's consolidated order of 30 May 2013, that appeals against that same order had already been dismissed by the same Court on 21 July 2014 in ITA No. 344 of 2013 and connected cases, and that it therefore followed that no substantial question of law arose. The mens rea question, the quantum question and the perversity question are recorded in paragraph 1 as the questions claimed and are not addressed again. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises and the appeal stands dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is left open." The decision followed or applied Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh, ITA No. 344 of 2013 and connected cases (Punjab and Haryana High Court, 21 July 2014) — followed; not retrieved on this pass.
It was decided by the High Court on 2014-09-15 and is reported as ITA No. 151 of 2014 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), arising from ITA Nos. 130-134(ASR)/2013 (ITAT Amritsar), assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 271FA, section 285BA, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed. The Court recorded that the Tribunal had decided 39 appeals by one consolidated order dated 30 May 2013, that the present appeal was one of them, and that similar appeals against that order, bearing ITA No. 344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and connected cases, had already been decided against the appellants and dismissed on 21 July 2014. In view of that, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal stood dismissed; the appeal having been dismissed on merits, no order was required on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which was left open (paras 4 and 5). It arises in Penalty and Appeals matters, on section 271FA, section 285BA, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Fateh Deep Singh J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If you are advising a Registrar, Sub-Registrar or other government office, treat the reporting obligation as personal to the office and diarise the 31 May due date under rule 114E(5); this decision shows the penalty being sustained against such an office for five years running. Where the department cites this judgment against you, point out that it lays down no ratio of its own and rests entirely on ITA No. 344 of 2013 decided 21 July 2014, and ask for that decision to be produced and its reasoning tested. Check whether your facts include the feature the Tribunal in the taxpayer-side line relies on — a first default, nothing or almost nothing to report, a portal failure — because this judgment contains none of them. Compute the exposure at the current rates rather than at the Rs.100 per day applied here.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing at all for this judgment. A second, differently framed full-text probe on 'Sub Registrar' with '271FA' returns 108 documents on the same penalty, but none of them cites the Muktsar decision - the section 271FA case law that has developed since is Tribunal work (the Chandigarh, Amritsar, Ahmedabad and Patna Benches) and, at High Court level, Kerala decisions such as Sub Registrar V.G. Cleetus v DIT (14 July 2023) and M.K. Viswakumar v Union of India, neither of which refers to it. That is unsurprising: the judgment dismissed the appeal on the footing that no substantial question of law arose, so it carries little citable ratio. No decision applying, affirming, overruling or doubting it was found, and no Supreme Court challenge is traceable. Treat it as an unexamined Punjab and Haryana disposal rather than as settled authority, and note that a practitioner outside that State will find the Kerala line more directly in point. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is a short judgment of five numbered paragraphs and the pass reached the disposal at para 5; the second, independent fetch returned para 5 word for word. It must be used with its limits stated plainly, and they are severe: the Court heard only the appellant's counsel (no appearance is recorded for the respondent), it does not answer any of the three questions framed, and it dismisses because connected appeals had already been dismissed on 21 July 2014 in ITA No. 344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh. That earlier decision could NOT be retrieved: an indiankanoon title search for 'Joint Sub Registrar Sangat' returned zero results. The reasoning that actually decides this line of cases is therefore not in this entry and has not been read. Other points: the assessment years are given as 2005-06 to 2009-10; the penalty order of the Director of Income Tax (CIB), Chandigarh is dated 22 December 2010 and levied Rs.100 per day for all the financial years; the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal for 2006-07 by order of 14 December 2012; the Tribunal, Amritsar, dismissed by consolidated order of 30 May 2013 in ITA Nos.130-134(ASR)/2013. Indiankanoon renders the case title as 'Sub Registrat Muktsar', a typographical error for Sub Registrar. The judgment describes the obligation under 'section 285BA(1)(d)' read with rule 114E as one to furnish an Annual Information Report in Form 61A for sale or purchase deeds exceeding thirty lakh rupees; the statutory language has since been recast as a 'statement of financial transaction', and rule 114E now expresses the immovable-property threshold as thirty lakh rupees or a stamp valuation of that amount. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court recorded that the Tribunal had decided 39 appeals by one consolidated order dated 30 May 2013, that the present appeal was one of them, and that similar appeals against that order, bearing ITA No. 344 of 2013, Joint Sub Registrar Sangat District Bathinda v. Director of Income Tax (CIB) Chandigarh and connected cases, had already been decided against the appellants and dismissed on 21 July 2014. In view of that, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal stood dismissed; the appeal having been dismissed on merits, no order was required on the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, which was left open (paras 4 and 5).
TaxSphere, “The Sub Registrar, Muktsar v Director of Income Tax (CIB)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/sub-registrar-muktsar-v-dit-cib-271fa-air-form-61a/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Our bank could not upload the statement of financial transactions on time because the core banking system was being migrated during a merger, and the I&CI wing has levied a per-day penalty under section 271FA. Is a technical failure a defence?
We had no reportable transactions and filed no SFT. Can they still levy penalty under 271FA?
My client is a small money changer who never knew he had to file Form 61A. A penalty of eighty-one thousand rupees has been levied under s.271FA. Is ignorance of the requirement any answer?
A notice says my client should have filed Form 61A and proposes a penalty of five hundred rupees a day. Who actually has to file, for what transactions, and how is the penalty computed?
