Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0645 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-10-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
25-07-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM S L. NO. ITA NO. NAME OF APPELLANT NAME OF RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR 1 - 7 1444 /PN/2016 TO 1450 /PN/2016 SHRI MAHESH B. CHAUDHARI, 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YAWAT ROAD, BHUSAWAL, JALGAON 425 201. PAN : AAQPC1999N THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 8 - 14 1458 /PN/2016 TO 1464 /PN/2016 M/S MOHANISH ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YAWAT ROAD, BHUSAWAL, JALGAON 425 201. PAN : AADCM1060E THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 15 - 21 1593 /PN/2016 TO 1599 /PN/2016 SMT. RANJANA G CHAUDHARI, 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YA WAT ROAD, BHUSAWAL, JALGAON 425 201. PAN : ADHPC3165C THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 22 - 28 1611 /PN/2016 SMT. KIRTI R CHAUDHARI, THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, 2006 - 07 22 - 28 1611 /PN/2016 T O 1617 /PN/2016 SMT. KIRTI R CHAUDHARI, 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YAWAT ROAD, BHUSAWAL, JALGAON 425 201. PAN : ADTPC8697D THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 29 - 35 1728 /PN/2016 TO 1734 /PN/2016 SMT. NAMDEO N CHAUDHARI, 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YAWAT ROAD, BHUSAWAL, JALGAON 425 201. PAN : AAQPC1 997C THE ITO, (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 10 .201 6 / DATE OF PRON OUNCEMENT: 07 . 10 .201 6 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST RESPECTIVE CONSOLIDATED ORDER /S OF CIT(A) - 12, PUNE, DATED 22.04.2016 , 26.05.2016 , 27.05.2016 AND 20.06.2016 RESPECTIVELY R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT RS.10,000/ - EACH FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELAT ING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.1444/PN/2016. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS. 10,000/ - EACH. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN TH IS BUNCH OF APPEAL S IS IDENTICAL TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHR I YASHODHAN NAMDEO CHAUDHARI VS. ITO IN ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13, ORDER DATED 08.07.2016. 4 . THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE STRESSED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REL ATED PARTY IS IDENTICAL. H OWEVER, BECAUSE OF DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED FOR EACH OF THE YEARS AT RS.10,000/ - EACH. 3 5 . BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON CHAUDHARI GROUP OF CASES, BHUSAWAL ON 04.10.2011. THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SAID GROUP OF CASES. THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 AND SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SEVERAL DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EMPLOYEES WERE RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11. 08.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,99,429/ - . THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06.07.2012. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19.09.2013 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE. ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 13. 12.2013. FURTHER, NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON PAPER RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON PAPER RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.01.2014 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND HENCE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT BY NOTICE DATED 20.01.2014. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE REPLY BY 29.01.2014. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE OFFICE LETTER DATED 15. 04.2014 CALLING FOR EXPLANATION ON OR BEFORE 29.04.2014. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 4 OF THE ORDER OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COM PLY WITH NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 19.09.2013 AND 13.12.2013 FOR COMPLIANCE ON 03.10.2013 AND 26.12.2013, THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/ - . 4 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SI MILARLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF IDENTICAL DEFAULT S IN ALL OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. 7 . THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN TURN, WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) , A GAINS T WHICH, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DEFAULT IN NON - APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 19.09.2013 AND 13.12.2013 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE SAID PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR ALL THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. SIMILAR ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AGAINST IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AGAINST SIMILAR DEFAULT IN NON - APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE RELATED CASE OF SHRI YASHODHAN NAMDEO CHAUDHARI VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND SINCE THE DEFAULT WAS RECURRING IN THE OTHER YEARS ON SAME DATE , THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR BALANCE YEARS WAS DELETED. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : - 9. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AFTER SEARCH AND SEI ZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED ON THE CHAUDHARI GROUP OF CASES, THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY SEARCHED. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139 BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 09.05.2013, 19.09.2013 AND ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 13.12.2013. SINCE 5 THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID NOTICE, SHOW - CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION WHERE A PERSON HAS DEFAULTED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND/O R FAILED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FOR, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH A PERSON TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF RS.10,000/ - EACH FOR SUCH FAILURE. THE SAID PENALTY IS PAYABLE IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY THE SAID PERSON. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD DEFAULTED AND HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO DOUBT COMPLETE INFORMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN LENIENT IN IMPOSING PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,000/ - , WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE SUCH DEFAULT, AS AGAINST THE DEFAULT OF ASSES SEE IN NON - COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS DATES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 10. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) E ACH FOR THE SAME DEFAULT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD LIABLE TO PAY THE PENALTY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 FOR A DEFAULT WHICH IS RE - RECURRING IN THE OTHER YEARS I.E. ON SAME DATES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN EACH OF THE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAME. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE BALANCE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 ARE DELETED. 9 . THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SH RI YASHODHAN NAMDEO CHAUDHARI VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. HOWEVER, THE SAID PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 ARE DELETED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1444/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IS DISMISSED AND APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1445 TO 1450/PN/2016 RE LATING TO OTHER YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 ARE ALLOWED. 11 . S IMILARLY, THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1458 TO 1464/PN/2016 RELATING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA 6 NOS.1444 TO 1450/PN/2016 RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1458/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND ALLOW THE BALANCE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1459 TO 1464/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. 12 . SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1593 TO 1599/PN/2016 RELATING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1444 TO 1450/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 A ND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1593/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND ALLOW THE BALANCE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1594 TO 1599/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. 13 . SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1611 TO 1617/PN/2016 RELATING 13 . SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1611 TO 1617/PN/2016 RELATING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1444 TO 1450/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REA SONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1611/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND ALLOW THE BALANCE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1612 TO 1617/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. 14 . FURTHER , THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA N OS.1728 TO 1734/PN/2016 RELATING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ARISING IN ITA NOS.1444 TO 1450/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1728/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 7 ALLOW THE BALANCE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1729 TO 1734/PN/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13. 15 . IN THE RESULT , ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE D ISPOSED OFF IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 7 TH OCTOBER, 2016. / GCVSR / COPY OF THE O RDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; 2 ) THE DEPARTMENT; 3 ) THE CIT(A) - 12, PUNE; 4 ) THE JT.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, NASHIK; 4 ) THE JT.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, NASHIK; 5 ) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6 ) GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , //TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE
Mehul