DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Futuristic Solutions Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 117/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1769 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 117/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YRS: 2012-13 DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), VS. M/S FUTURISTIC SOLUTIONS L TD., NEW DELHI. M-50, 2 ND FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH-1, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACM 1579 M ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESHWAR PRASAD PAINULY DATE OF HEARING : 13/11/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 30/11/2015. O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2013, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XIII, DELHI, IN A PPEAL NO. 136/2012-13OR A.Y. 2012-13, BY TAKING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF AP PEAL: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,2 3,158/- MADE U/S 140A R.W. SECTION 221 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 FOR FAILING TO DEPOSIT THE TAX COMPUTED ON RETURNED INC OME AT THE TIME OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN. 2. I HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE SAME, ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THA T PROVISO 1 TO SECTION 221 IS APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY, T HE AO MUST GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS PROVISO READS AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT BEFORE LEVYING ANY SUCH PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD. 2 3. IN THIS CASE I NOTED THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. SINCE NO SHO W CAUSE NOTICE WS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ALS O COULD NOT FILE ANY REPLY WHAT- SO-EVER AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. UND ER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE B EFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY IS THE VIOLATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF LAW, WHICH IS IN BUILT IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 221 AND, THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IF THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY O N THIS BASIS. THE REVENUE, EVEN THOUGH HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT , CHALL ENGING THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY, BUT COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD OR FILE BEFO RE ME ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, WHICH MAY PROVE THAT ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 221. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE, WHICH WARRANTS ANY INTERFERENCE. I, ACCORDING LY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2015. SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/11/2015. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.