Shri Chetankumar Umakant Saraugi, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1630/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6851 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : SMC BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M .) I.T.A. NO. 1630/AHD./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 CHETANKUMAR UMAKANT SARAOGI, ABAD -VS- I.T. O., WARD-2(1), AHMEDABAD (PAN : ACKPS 9264L) (APPELLANT) (RES PONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.F.JAIN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MEENA, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.08.2011 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 05.05.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI V, AHMEDABAD CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.20,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI P.F.JAIN, A.R. APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 ON 23.12.2008 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,50,430/-. HE FURTH ER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS, SUCH AS, DETAILS OF INTEREST ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF SALARY EXPENSES, DETAILS OF WAGES EXPENSES AND DETAILS OF TDS MADE FROM HIS INCOME ALONG WITH ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED O N 31/03/2007. IN FACT, THE AO ISSUED ONLY ONE NOTICE DATED 07/05/2008 FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM ON 07.07.2008 AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND TO THE SAID DATE OF HEARING DUE TO DISTURBED STATE OF MIND RESULTING FROM PERSONAL AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE FACT THAT T HE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ONLY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF ONE NOTICE, HENCE PENALTY FOR TWO DEFAULT HAS BEEN WRONGLY LEVIED HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER, WHILE CONFIRMING THE 2 ITA NO. 1630-AHD-2011 PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,000/-. THEREFORE, TH E LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS THERE WAS ONLY ONE DEFAULT AND DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST NOTICE ARE ALREADY ON RECORD, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S.K.MEENA, SR.D.R., APPE ARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, I HAVE CAREFULLY GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE AO ISSUED TWO NOTICES. NONE OF THE NOTICES WERE COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A RE SULT OF THIS, THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT HE WAS IN A DISTURBED STATE OF MIND, AT THE MO ST, CAN BE ACCEPTED IN RESPECT OF ONE DEFAULT. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IN CASE, THE PENALTY IS LEVIED ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE DEFAULT. I , ACCORDINGLY, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY TO RS.10,000/-. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.08.20 11. SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16/08/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A.) CONCERNED, 4) CIT CONCERNED, 5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD TALUKDAR/SR.P.S. 3 ITA NO. 1630-AHD-2011