Smt. Chandrikaben N.Vyas, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-11, Ahmedabad

ITA 2118/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80247 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV SRDR
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2118/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] SMT. CHANDRIKABEN N. VYAS 7, VIVEKANAND SOCIETY PALDI, AHMEDABAD 380 007. PAN : ACLPV 3842 N /VS. DCIT, CIR.11 AHMEDABAD. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH JULY, 2014 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT OF THE CASE, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DI SPOSED OF EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. ITA NO.2118/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY O F RS.20,000/- U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IS NOT CORRECT . 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GU ILTY OF NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SE CTION 142(1) BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE IN THIS CASE WAS RS.10,000/-, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUST IFY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.20,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF T HE ACT, IN THIS CASE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1 ) OF THE ACT, AND HAS NOT EVEN GIVEN ANY REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE I SSUED BEFORE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOL D THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE IN THI S CASE, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR WAS RS.10,000/-, WE HOLD THAT THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE SERVED BY RESTRICTING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT TO RS.10,000/- AND THE BALANCE PENALTY IS DELETED, AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT