Bhupindra Society, Patiala V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 1173/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6578 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1073/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S MOHAN FIBRE PRODUCTS LIMITED, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACCM7732N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] CHANDIGARH AGIT ATING THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271 (1)(B) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE ISS UED U/S 143(2) / 142(1) 2 ON VARIOUS DATES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT PENALTY SHO ULD NOT BE IMPOSED AS THE NON-ATTENDANCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WAS DUE TO SOME REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONTENTION AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ATTENDING C.A. OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI VINEET K HURANA HAD TO LEAVE SUDDENLY TO DEHRADUN AT 5.00 AM ON 10.10.2015. HE R ETURNED ONLY ON 28.10.2015 EVENING. HE WAS SUFFERING FROM HIGH VIRA L FEVER IN DEHRADUN AND WAS ON BED REST THERE. DUE TO SUDDEN PROGRAMME, HE COULD NOT INFORM OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY IS A LAW BINDING ASSESSEE AND ALWAYS ATTENDED THE HEARING AND OTHER APPEARANCES BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. HE IN THIS RESPECT HAS IN VITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(B) AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IDENTICAL SUB MISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE C ONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER THE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF WHI CH HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IT IS NOT AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS, AS 3 EXPLAINED, FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE BEYOND HIS CONTROL. IN VIE W OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES IN LEVYING IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS AC CORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.11.2017 SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH NOV., 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR