Hasmukh P Soni, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Baroda

ITA 1550/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8473 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HASMUKH P. SONI, GF/MEGH DHANUSHYA COMPLEX, PIPLA SHERI NA K A, GADIYALI POLE, BARODA - 390001 PAN: AFSPS8722E (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 3(1)(4), RACE COURSE, BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 02 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 04 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, AC COUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 3, VADODARA DATED 11 - 04 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 ) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: - 1.00 LEVYING PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.30,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271 (1 )(B) OF THE ACT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID AO HAS ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY AT RS. 10,000/ - EACH ON ALLEG ED NON - COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES DATED 17.07.2014, 19.09.2014 AND 29.12.2014 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NECESSARY DETAILS AS CALLED FOR WERE MADE AVAILABLE, THOUGH NOT IN TIME BUT A LITTLE LATER. THE ID. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING PLEA OF YOUR APPE LLANT THAT THE MATTER WAS DEALT IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE MANNER THOUGH IT WAS NOT TIMELY COMPLIED WITH. THE NON - TIMELY COMPLIANCE WAS BONAFIDE MISTAKE OF APPELLANT AND THE SAME WAS NOT WITH MALAFIDE I T A NO . 155 0 / A HD/20 16 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 I.T.A NO. 1550 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO HASMUKH P SONI VS. ITO 2 INTENTION. APPELLANT FURTHER STATES THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED THREE TIMES AS PENALTY IMPOSED HAS BEEN RS.30, 000/ - FOR 3 TIMES NONCOMPLIANCE OF SINGLE NOTICE. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 30,000/ - U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NOT MAKING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES O N THREE OCCASIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NOBODY ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 29 TH FEB, 2018 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) ON THE REASONING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE COMPLIANCE W ITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 142(I) OF THE ACT ON 17 TH JULY, 2014, 19 TH SEP, 2014 AND 29 TH DECEMBER, 2014 RESPECTIVELY. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF OLD AGE PROBLEMS HE HAS DEPENDENT UPON HIS SON FOR TAX MATTER AND IN TURN HIS SON COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS BECAUSE OF NON REGULAR ACCOUNTANT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF ABOVE HINDRANCE THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION THAT BECAUSE OF DAY TO DAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY ALONG WITH CERTAIN AGING PROBLEMS , THE NECESSARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES WERE NOT MADE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN T H E FOLLOWING CA S E S: - I.T.A NO. 1550 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO HASMUKH P SONI VS. ITO 3 I) AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHMSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST, VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (DELHI) IN THE ITAT, DELH I II) SWARANABEN M. KHANNA V S . DCIT (2010) 37 SOT 25 (AHD) IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH III) DHANRAJ G MANGALANI VS. ACIT DECIDED BY CIT(A) - 12, AHMEDABAD IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE INTENTION FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE DETAILS IN TIME. WE HAVE CONSIDE RED THE SUBMISSION. WE OBSERVE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS TIMELY , H OWEVER, THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY OCCURRED IN SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS BECAUSE OF BUSY SCHEDULE OF DAY TO DAY BUSINESS ACTI VI TY, LACK OF REGULAR ACCOUNTANT, AGING PROBLEM ETC. A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FA C T S AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS , WE RESTRICT THE PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 1 0,000/ - THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 . AS A RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 11 - 04 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11 /04 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,