Smt. Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha, Manmad V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3, Malegaon

ITA 1608/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8894 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MALVIYA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL , VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM . / I TA NO. 1608 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 SMT. RUPALI SANJAY BEDMUTHA, PROP. M/S. P.B. ENTERPRISES, MANKE COMPOUND, S.P. ROAD, MANMAD 423104 PAN : AGVPB6729Q .... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 , MALEGAON / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MALVIYA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 8.07.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29. 07.2020 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK DATED 05.04.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL) - 1, NASHIK, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2 . THE A PPELLANT CRAVES FOR ADDITION TO, DELETION, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, CHANGE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 1608/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009 - 10 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)( B ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A CT) FOR RS. 10,000/ - . 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT. WE HAVE RECORDED THE PRESENCE OF THE LD. DR. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN BUILDING MATERIAL, STEEL, BINDING WIRE ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,89,542/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO NOT ICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 30.09.2014 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED ALONG WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED/LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD S AND ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. THIS IS A CASE WHERE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.10,000/ - FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. THEREAFTER, INFORMATION S WERE RE CEIVED BY THE 3 ITA NO. 1608/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009 - 10 ASSESSING OFFICER FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA AND AFTER WHICH HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF T HE ACT. AGAIN THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT STATING THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - ATTENDANCE ON THE GIVEN DATE AS PER THE SAID NOTICE. TH E PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN WE PERUSE THE PENALTY ORDER AT PARA 5 IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FROM DR. MAJOJ DASHPUT E STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER HIS TREATMENT FOR DEPRESSION WITH ANXIETY DISORDER FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STILL LEVIED THE PENALTY SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW HAS ABSOLUTELY OVERLOOKED THE FACTS ON RECORD WHICH ARE GENUINE. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING HIS ILL - HEALTH. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND WE THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 29 TH DAY OF J ULY, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - R.S. SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE - PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 29 TH JULY, 2020 . RK 4 ITA NO. 1608/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009 - 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK . 4. THE PR. CIT - 1, NASHIK . 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE .