Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya, Jamnagar V. The ITO, Ward-3(5), Jamnagar

ITA 186/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7282 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 250; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Moh mad Sali m Ab d ul Kari m Maya, Gha ni Sheri, Panch Hatdi, Ja mn agar PAN: AM DPM8608 B (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-3(5), Ja mnagar (Resp ondent) Asses see by : Written Submis sion Revenue by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 01-07 -2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-09 -2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar, in Appeal no. CIT(A)- Jam/512/18-19/254 vide order dated 28/05/2019 passed for the assessment year 2010-11. ITA No. 186/Rjt/2019 Assessment Year 2010-11 I.T.A No. 186/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Income Tax officer has erred on facts and in law in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in laws in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw one or more ground of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an Individual and assessed to tax with Income Tax Officer, ward 3(5), Jamnagar. The assessee passed away on 02/01/2021. The assessee was retired and during the year under consideration had undertaken some transaction in share market. No other economical activities were carried out by the assessee. The assessee had no taxable income. Therefore, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Scrutiny assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was completed on 19/12/2017 and determined total income at Rs. 3,01,260/- on estimate basis. The assessing officer has also levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the notice issued by income tax department. Being aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee had preferred appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Jamnagar. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) passed order u/s 250 of the Act. After giving effect of CIT (A) order, income of the assessee was reduced to Rs. 1,01,260/- which was below taxable. As per I.T.A No. 186/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO 3 appeal effect order dated 04/07/2017 there is no tax payable. Notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing NIL demand was issued to the assessee. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when there is no taxable income during the year under consideration. The assessee was uneducated. As the assessee had no taxable income, he was not aware about procedural aspects of the notice. Moreover, he was also not knowing any tax consultant or C.A. Therefore, the assessee had given the notice to his relative for further process. However, his relative forgot to give the notice to his chartered accountant. Therefore, notice issued by income tax department was not complied. The assessee was not aware about non compliance. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the observations made in the CIT(A) order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that after the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the income of the assessee was below taxable limit. Accordingly, in the instant facts, there was no requirement to file return of income as well. Also, during the period under consideration, the assessee was keeping ill health, and he subsequently passed away. Accordingly, in our considered view, this is a fit case for deletion of penalty under section 271(1) (b) of the Act. I.T.A No. 186/Rjt/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO 4 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Penalty under section 271(1) (b) of the Act is directed to be deleted. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-09-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDHHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 14/09/2022 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot