Sh. Rakesh Arora, Agra V. I.T.O.-Ward-2(4), Agra

ITA 185/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 18520314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 185/AGRA/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 RAKESH ARORA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17, PRABHU NAGAR, WARD 2(4) JAIPUR HOUSE, AGRA AGRA (PAN ADNPA 9507 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI RAJENDRA SHARMA,ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SRI WASEEM A RSHAD, SR..D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.06.2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.01.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AGRA, CHALLE NGING THE PENALTY OF RS.22,600/- IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 272(2)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT( A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING, THE REQUIRED DETAILS FILED FROM TIME TO TIME, AS PER TH E DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THEM AND ALSO NOT FOLLOWING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.185/AGRA/2012 2 COVERED UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT AND FURTHER T HE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, SHRI RAJENDRA SHA RMA ADVANCE HIS ARGUMENT WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTION AND MOST SPECIFICALLY T HE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE INCOME ACT, 1961. IT WAS ALSO CONTEND ED THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY FILED WRITTEN REPLY IN WHICH DUE COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO T HE NOTICE ISSUED BY ITO-2(4), AGRA. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR D.R. DE FENDED CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.22,600/- UPON THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMI TTING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT, AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ITO-2(4), AGRA REPORTED TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, RANGE-2, AGRA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE A CT TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE LEARNED ITO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH AND EVEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE OP PORTUNITY AFFORDED VIDE LETTER DATED 28.08.2008. THUS, PENALTY OF RS.22,600/- WAS IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE SAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREIN ALSO THE PENALTY WAS AFFIRMED AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE NOTE THAT EVEN IN THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2009 (PARA 2) OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL COMMI SSIONER IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON THIS DATE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN REPLY S TATING THEREIN THAT HE MADE ITA NO.185/AGRA/2012 3 COMPLIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE ITO UNDE R SECTION 133(6)... WE FURTHER NOTE THAT EVEN AT PAGE NO.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IF THE APPELLANT HAD ANY DIFFICULTY, HE COULD HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER OR BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIT RAN GE-2 TO EXPLAIN HIS DIFFICULTY AND SHOWING THEM THAT THE DETAILS REQUIRED HAVE ALR EADY BEEN FILED. INSTEAD OF COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), HE KEPT ON REPEATING THAT THE REQUIRED DETAILS HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED TO THE INC OME TAX OFFICER.. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT ON ONE OCCASION THE ASSESSEE MIGHT NOT HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED ITO BUT ASSESSEE HAD BEEN HARPING SINCE BEG INNING THAT HE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN WHICH HE MADE THE NECESSARY COMPLIANC E IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE WITH THE HELP OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL. SINCE IT IS A SMALL PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.22,600/-, BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW AND CONSID ER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A MERCY PETITION, UNDER THE FACTS MENTIONED HEREIN A BOVE, THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN REPLY. EVEN THE LEARNED ITO IN HIS NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION IN CONNECTI ON WITH THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO BE FILED THROUGH WRITTEN REPLY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 6 TH JUNE, 2014 AMIT/ ITA NO.185/AGRA/2012 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY