Anthati Ramulu Goud, Suryapet, Hyderabad V. ITO, Suryapet, Suryapet

ITA 1171/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6087 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SREEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1171/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, SURYAPET. PAN AIYPA2655H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI V. SREEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 16-03-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2017 ORDER PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT-3, HYDERABAD DATED 06.05.2016 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) OF THE I.T.ACT OF RS.30,OOO/- 4) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR EACH OF THE FAILURE IS ONLY RS.10,OOO/- AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT IN EVERY PENALTY ORDER ONLY RS.10,OOO/- CAN BE LEVIED. 5) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 ITA NO. 1171/HYD/2016 SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, SURYAPET. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRI KANAKADURGA JEWELLERS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 31-03-2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,50,790. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 30-12-2011, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,44,26,980/- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O ISSUED NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, ON 03-08-2011, 11-11-2011- AND 05-12-2011, DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FURNISHED DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE A.O ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THEREFORE, THE A.O ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY SHALL NOT BE LEVIED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE A.O LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON 03-08-2011, 11-11-2011- AND 05-12-2011. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON SEVEN OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY 3 ITA NO. 1171/HYD/2016 SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, SURYAPET. THE A.O U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE LD. AR FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THREE OCCASIONS MENTIONED BY THE A.O IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O ON VARIOUS DATES AND FURNISHED DETAILS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE INITIAL FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O, ON THREE OCCASIONS IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR TO AVOID ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O, AS THE A.O HAS ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES GIVING SHORT PERIOD TO FURNISH VARIOUS INFORMATION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR ON FEW OCCASIONS, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE A.O FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE A.O WAS ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE A.O LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR NON-APPEARANCE AS ON THE DATE OF 4 ITA NO. 1171/HYD/2016 SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, SURYAPET. HEARING. IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NON- ATTENDANCE AS ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON THREE OCCASIONS IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR AVOIDING ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE A.O HAS ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND SUMMONS U/S 131(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR ON THREE OCCASIONS AS NOTICED BY THE A.O, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THREE OCCASIONS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND FURNISHED INFORMATION CALLED FOR WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE INITIAL FAILURE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR AVOIDING ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O. THOUGH, THERE IS A LAPS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, IN ATTENDING ON THREE OCCASIONS, THE INITIAL FAILURE BECAME TECHNICAL AND NON-SERIOUS, SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O AND FURNISHED ALL DETAILS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH DOES NOT WARRANTS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR INITIAL FAILURE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO DELETE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 5 ITA NO. 1171/HYD/2016 SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, SURYAPET. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (G. MANJUNATHA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH MARCH, 2017 KRK 1) SHRI ANTHATI RAMULU GOUD, C/O SHRI S RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD-29 2) ITO, SURYAPET, NOLGONDA DIST 3) CIT -3, HYDERABAD 4) PCIT-3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE