M/s. Shah Tokarshi Tribhovandas, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1854/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 185420514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK N CHAVDA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.1854 /AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] M/S.SHAH TOKARSHI TRIBHOVANDAS NR.FIRE STATION, CITY DANAPITH AHMEDABAD 380 001. PAN : AAFFS 6584 G /VS. ITO, WARD-3(3) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIVEK N. CHAVDA . + , #/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 4 TH DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDAB AD DATED 5.7.2012. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 5.7.2012 FOR A.Y.2 08-09 BY CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000 LEVIED U/S.271(1 )(B) BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- LEVIED U/S.271 (1)(B) BY AO ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILU RE TO ATTEND ON THE GIVEN DATE, THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED EXPLAN ATION WHICH WAS NOT DISBELIEVED BY AO NOR IT HAD RESULTED INTO ANY LOSS TO THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1854 /AHD/2012 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S .271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ONLY ISSUE IS REGARDING PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE DEFAULT OF NON- COMPLIANCE FOR THE DATE 19.10.2011 AND THERE WAS DIWALI FESTIVAL THE NEXT DAY ON 20.10.2011, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS MARRIAGE OF GRAND DAUGHTER OF SENIOR PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND THE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS BUSY WITH THE PREPARATION THEREOF. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON 19.10.2011 O F NON-COMPLIANCE AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND IN FACT THE DEFAULT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ONE WEEKS TIME TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS, A ND HAS NOT FILED THE SAID DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFAU LT WAS WILLFUL, AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED ON THE A SSESSEE. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). I FIND THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED ON 19.10.2011 AND HAS FILED W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 28.1 0.2011 THE DETAILS OF INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED AND THE AO FURTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION AS PER THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ONE WEEKS TI ME TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) WAS ISSUE D FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ON 7.12.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY THEREOF O N 10.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE ACCOUNTANT AND OTHER STAFF WAS ON LEAVE DUE ITA NO.1854 /AHD/2012 TO DIWALI , AND MOREOVER, THE GRAND DAUGHTER OF THE SENIOR PA RTNER OF THE FIRM WAS GETTING MARRIED, AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS BUSY WITH THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF WORKING PARTNER OF THE FIRM, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN DETAILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE AO. I FIND THAT THESE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UDNER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, AS T HE DEFAULT DOES NOT SEEMS TO BE INTENTIONAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT ` 10,000/ IS CANCELLED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD