Mrs. Parul Goyal, Agra V. I.T.O.-1(3), Agra

ITA 130/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7030 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 273B; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 129 & 130/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 MRS. PARUL GOYAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 54, GANDHI NAGAR, AGRA. 1(3), AGRA. (PAN ABPPG 1159 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE O RDERS DATED 10.01.2011 OF THE CIT(A), AGRA. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ALMOST ID ENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, GROU NDS IN APPEAL NO. 129/AGRA/2011 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- ARBI TRARILY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF I.T. ACT, 1961, BY LEARNED ITO 1(3), A GRA, WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, HE BEIN G PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, WHICH RESULTED INTO ALLEGED FAILU RE, IF ANY, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(B) OF I.T. ACT, 1961, THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- DESER VES TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 1 0 TH JANUARY, 2011 IS BAD IN LAW AS HE HAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERE D THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN TOTALITY. 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE N ON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR EVIDENCE ON THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. LASTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMP LY WITH THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THUS, LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) AND HAS IMPOSED A SUM OF RS.10,000/- AS PENALTY BY PASSING THE ORDERS U/S. 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON 13.11.2006 AND ON 07.12.2006. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO V IDE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 10.01.2011 UPHELD THE PENALTY ORDER AND DISMISSED T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEALS AND CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCA TE, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING H ER EXPLANATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE ONLY REQUE STED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER 3 GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATI NG HER CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY O BJECTION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND I A M OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIAN CE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STATING THEREIN THAT IN THE SCRUTINY PR OCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE WAS GOT MA RRIED AND SHIFTED TO HER HUSBANDS RESIDENCE AND HER INCOME-TAX RECORDS AND PARTICULARS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WERE NOT TRACEABLE. THUS, INSPITE OF BEST POSSIBLE EFFORTS MADE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS, DETAILS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED BY HER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE. THEREFORE, THE COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE MADE. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT T HIS PLEA HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BE FORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PASSE D IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THIS IS PENALTY PROCEEDING AND THE ASSESSEE WAS GOT MARRIED AND SHI FTED TO HER HUSBANDS RESIDENCE AND HER INCOME TAX RECORDS AND PARTICULAR S FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001- 02 WERE NOT TRACEABLE. TO PROVE THE SAME, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.05.20 11. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH MAY, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY