ISHAK SHEKH HAZI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 172/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5418 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 172/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. SHRI ISHAK SHEKH HAZI D-41, HARI NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABPH 6933 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV SHARMA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/01/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/02/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 02.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CHALLENG ING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) FOR RS. 10,000/-. 2. THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 8.2.2010 THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A TRUE AND CORRECT RETURN OF ITS INCOME, BU T HE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME ON THE GIVEN DATE. AGAIN VIDE NOTICE DATED 4.1 1.2010 AND 14.12.2010 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CERT AIN DETAILS ON 15.11.2010 & 20.12.2010, RESPECTIVELY, BUT ON THE B OTH DATES NEITHER ANY ONE ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED. THESE FACTS ARE EVIDENT FROM THE NOTICES ISSUED ON 8.2.2010, 4.11.2 010 & 14.12.2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. 2 ITA NO. 172/JP/2014 SHRI ISHAK SHEKH HAZI VS. ITO FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1). I HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE ATTRACTS PENALTY U /S 271(1)(B). I, THEREFORE, IMPOSE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- UPON THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER :- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; PEN ALTY ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER L EVIED PENALTY FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- ONLY FOR ONE DEFAULT. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS, COMPLIANCE COULD N OT BE MADE BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS SUFFERING FROM HEART AILMENT. APPELLA NT ALSO SUBMITTED HIS MEDICAL HISTORY. HOWEVER, THE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOT ICES WAS TO BE MADE BY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND APPELLANT COULD NO T SUBMIT ANY REASON FOR NOT EVEN COMMUNICATING TO THE AR FOR COMPLIANCE TO THE LEGAL NOTICES IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND S ERVED ON THE APPELLANT IN TIME AND THEREFORE APPELLANT WAS DUTY BOUND TO COMP LY WITH THESE NOTICES. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MEDICAL HISTORY O F THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT PREVENTED APPELLANT FROM COMMUNICA TING THE LEGAL NOTICE TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT AS FAR AS DEF AULT COMMITTED TO THESE NOTICES IS CONCERNED. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE LE VY OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- BY THE A.O. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT N OTICES COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH DUE TO MEDICAL UNFITNESS AND RELIED ON THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS. 5. THE LD. D/R ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT IN NONE OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON ANY MEDICAL UNFITNESS FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE AO HAS BEEN VERY KIND IN IMPOSING ONLY ONE PENA LTY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED THREE DEFAULTS. 6. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION TO SUPPORT HIS 3 ITA NO. 172/JP/2014 SHRI ISHAK SHEKH HAZI VS. ITO CONTENTION ABOUT MEDICAL UNFITNESS. IN VIEW THEREO F, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY , WHICH IS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/02/2016 . SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29/02/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ISHAK SHEKH HAZI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.172/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 4 ITA NO. 172/JP/2014 SHRI ISHAK SHEKH HAZI VS. ITO