M/s Palace Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. Addl. Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Chandigarh

ITA 1647/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0447 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDEEP GOYAKL

Judgement Text

ITA 1647/CHD/2017 PAGE 1 OF 2 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO.1647/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S PALACE JEWELLERS P.LTD. COLLEGE ROAD, LUDHIANA. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I&CI), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AADCG9237H / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGDEEP GOYAKL $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2018 (*/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, A MRITSAR CAMP AT CHANDIGARH AGITATING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272A(2 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE SOLE REASON FOR THE LEVY OF THE ABOVE PENALT Y IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUPPLY THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM/CD AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEV ER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT IT SUPPLIED THE REQUISITE I NFORMATION NOT ONLY IN THE HARD COPY BUT ALSO IN THE SOFT COPY AS WAS D EMANDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THERE IS NO DENIAL OF TH E RECEIPT OF THE REQUISITE INFORMATION BY THE DEPARTMENT IN WRITING/ HARD COPY, HOWEVER, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA 1647/CHD/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 FAILED TO SUPPLY THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN SOFT COPY/C.D. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING HAS PLEADED THAT IT HAS SUPPLIED INFORMATION BOTH IN HARD COPY AND SOFT COPY BUT COULD NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF SUPPLYING THE SOFT COPY TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ADMIT TEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN WRITING/ON HARD COPY. THOUGH THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT H AS ALSO SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION IN SOFT COPY/C.D. BUT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS RESPECT, HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT IS PROVED ON THE FILE THAT THE REQUISITE INFORMATION, THOUGH IN THE HARD COPY WAS SUPPLIED TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY AVOIDED T HE COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272(A)(2)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS, THE REFORE, ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11. 2018. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# ) ( ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR