Shri Sunil Kumar Biddua, Bhopal V. THE ITO 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 1016/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5717 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADE REPLY BEFORE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 142(1); 274

Judgement Text

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR BIDDUA V. ITO1 (1)/I.T.A. NO. 1016 /IND/2016/A.Y.:06-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE . . , . . , ' BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./I.T.A NO. 1016/IND/2016 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI SUNIL KUMAR BIDDUA Q. NO. G-5, OLD POLICE LINE, BEHIND CIVIL COURT , SHAHAJANABAD, BHOPAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) BHOPAL % /APPELLANT &'% /RESPONDENT . . ./PAN: AIWPB 9674M % ( /APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHUTOSH LOYA , CA &'% ( /RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR ( /DATE OF HEARING 20.03.2017 , ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.03.2017 /O R D E R PER BENCH THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL [IN SHORT CIT (A)] D ATED 30.06.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER DATED 2 4.04.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (B) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), BHOPAL (IN SHORT THE AO). 1. IN THE GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HA S ASSAILED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT. 2. SUCCINCTLY, FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. AN AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FOR NON PANA DATA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 4 LAKH IN MUTUAL FUND. THERE FORE, AFTER RECORDING REASON, NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED ON 26.03.2013, BUT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS F ILED, HENCE, AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS. DURING THE COURSE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR BIDDUA V. ITO1 (1)/I.T.A. NO. 1016 /IND/2016/A.Y.:06-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) WAS ISSUED ON 02.08.2013 FIXING THE HEARING ON 20.08. 2013. HOWEVER, SAME WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH NO R ANY REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1) (B) DTD. 21. 10. 2013 WAS FILED NOR WAS ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. AGAIN, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1) (B) ISSUED 11.04.2014 FOR FIXING HEARING ON 23.04.2014, WHICH WAS SERVED THROUGH SPEED POST. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 27 1(1) (B) OF THE ACT. 3. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT MERELY SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE BY SPEE D POST. HOWEVER, LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT PENALTY OR DER WAS ALSO SENT ON SAME ADDRESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RECEIVED IT AND APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST T HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND AS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT TENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR COMPELLED WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1). IT IS NOT EVEN CO MPLIED WITH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1) (B). ACCORDINGLY, LEVY OF PENALTY WAS CAM TO BE CON FIRMED. 4. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 142(1) OF THE ACT AS THE NOTICE WAS SENT ON WRON G POSTAL ADDRESS AT G/S OLD POLICE COLONY BEHIND CIVIL COURT BHOPAL WHEREA S ASSESSEE`S CORRECT ADDRESS WAS G/5 OLD POLICE COLONY BEHIND CIVIL COURT BHOPAL. THE LD. A.R. ALSO FILED A COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK IN SUPPORT OF CORRECT ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO OBTAIN AND SUB MIT THE INFORMATION AS AND WHEN IT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AFTER RECEIVING PENALTY ORDER BY HAND FROM DEPARTMENT AND NOT BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY POSTAL ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH, THE NOTICES ISSUED TO HIM. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR BIDDUA V. ITO1 (1)/I.T.A. NO. 1016 /IND/2016/A.Y.:06-07 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES WAS MADE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A DEFAU LT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE AO WERE JUST IFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (B) O F THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLI ED WITH THE NOTICE AS IT WAS SENT ON WRONG POSTAL ADDRESS AT G/S OLD POLICE COLONY BEHIND CIVIL COURT BHOPAL WHEREA S ASSESSEE`S CORRECT ADDRESS WAS G/5 OLD POLICE COLONY BEHIND CIVIL COURT BHOPAL. THE LD . A.R. HAS FILED COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK OF BANK OF BARODA, GIVING POSTAL ADDRESS AS G/5 OLD POLICE LINE . WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CONTENTION OF CORRECT ADDRESS . THEREFORE, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPL IANCE OF THE NOTICE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO OBTAIN AND SUBMIT THE INFORMATION AS AND WHEN IT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE AND ACCORDINGLY RECEIVED THE PENALTY ORDE R FROM DEPARTMENT BY HAND AND MADE REPLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) . THUS, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AFTER RECEIVING PEN ALTY ORDER BY HAND FROM DEPARTMENT AND NOT BECAUSE THE N OTICE WAS RECEIVED BY POSTAL ADDRESS BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS CONSTITUTED THE REASONABLE CAUSE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, WE CANCELLED TH E PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. 8. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.03.20 17 SD/- SD/- ( . . )/(C.M. GARG) ( . . ) /(O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 20.03.2017/OP