Manju Jain, Ghaziabad V. ITO,Ward-1(1)(4), Meerut

ITA 1875/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manju Jain against the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ghaziabad, for non-compliance with a statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially levied by the AO following an assessment under sections 144/147 of the Act, which was completed on 16.12.2019. The assessee contended that the notice was sent to her old address in Dehradun, although she had moved to Delhi and updated her address with her bank. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108548 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1); 274

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 1875/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1875/DEL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manju Jain, Flat No. 701, Tower-1, Parsvnath Reglia, G.T. Road, Near Rajbagh Metro Station, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. PAN- ACLPJ7071R Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ghaziabad APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. SAurav Gupta, Adv. Department represented by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.08.2023 Date of pronouncement 11.08.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 2 ITA No. 1875/Del/2023 Delhi, dated 25.04.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s. 274 read with section 271(l)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee u/s. 271(l)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should be deleted. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) was wrong in passing the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity to the assessee hence the order as framed is not correct. 3. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, no statutory notices issued U/s 147/148/142(1) and order passed U/s 147/144 were served/received on the address of the assessee. 4. That the assessee shifted to Delhi in the year 2007 at G - 23, Block - G, Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092, but the notices were issued and the same was remained un-served on the old address of the assessee i.e. G - 11, Race Course, Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand. Further, it may be noted that the address of the assessee updated in the bank account was of Delhi, but the Ld. AO issued the notice for the old address and ignored the change of Address & further while passing the Ex-parte appeal order the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has also ignored this fact completely. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. The only effective ground raised in this appeal is against levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act on 16.12.2019. The AO also initiated penalty 3 ITA No. 1875/Del/2023 proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for not complying with the notice dated 01/11/2019 u/s 142(1) issued during assessment proceedings. Accordingly, AO issued a notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and thereafter, vide penalty order dated 22/02/2022 levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- 271(1)(b) for not complying with the statutory notice issued by the AO. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who sustained the penalty. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had shifted from Dehradun to Delhi in the year 2007 and the changed address was updated in the bank account. However, the notice was sent at the old Dehradun address and was not received by the assessee and as such assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not complying with the statutory notice. He prayed that there was no deliberate or willful fault on the part of the assessee for non-compliance of the notice and therefore the impugned penalty levied by the authorities below may be cancelled. 5. Learned DR opposed the above submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. For the reasons stated by the learned counsel I am of the considered view 4 ITA No. 1875/Del/2023 that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non compliance of the notice issued by the AO. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Grounds of appeal are allowed. 7. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 11 th August, 2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI