Anil Kumar Lalbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. Income Tax Officer, Mehsana

ITA 2113/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 211320514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KSHATRIYA
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO S . 211 3 /AHD/ 20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2 0 0 6 - 07 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH , SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO. 2 113 / AHD / 2 0 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 6 - 07 ANIL KUMAR LALBHAI PATEL, ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT 2, MEHSANA SOCIETY, NAVA WADAJ, AHMEDABAD. [PAN A CJPP 1188 M ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT WARD 3, MEHSANA . APPEARANCES BY: ANIL KSH A TRIYA FOR THE APPELLANT ANIL K U MAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 15 TH , 201 5 DATE O F PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 16 TH , 2015 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE LD . CIT (A) S ORDER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2015 UPHOLDING PENALTY OF RS. 5,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271 F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 ( THE ACT FOR SHORT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S ) IS BAD IN LAW AND UNFAIR. THE SAME MAY BE Q UASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEAL S ) HAS G R OSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.5000/ - U/S. 271F, WHEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME . ITA NO S . 211 3 /AHD/ 20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2 0 0 6 - 07 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEA L , IT I S SUFFICIENT TO T A KE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF HIS NOT FILING TH E INCOME TAX RETURN, EVEN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS ABROAD DU RING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE DULY FURNISHED A COPY OF HIS PASSPORT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION. LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, BRUSHED ASIDE HIS PLEA ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED PETITION UNDER RULE 46A FOR REMAND R E POR T . THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND I S IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE E XPLANATION FOR HIS LAPSE AND NO INFIRMITIES ARE POINTED OUT IN THE EXPLANATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE ACT INDEED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I DIRECT SO. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 16 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDEN T (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD