Sh. Manish Bhargav, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2157/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 215720114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC- -- -1 11 1 : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S SS S . .. . 2157/DEL/2014 2157/DEL/2014 2157/DEL/2014 2157/DEL/2014 & 2158/DEL/2014 & 2158/DEL/2014 & 2158/DEL/2014 & 2158/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2006 2006 2006 2006 - -- - 07 0707 07 SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI, MEHRAULI, MEHRAULI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 030. 110 030. 110 030. 110 030. PAN PAN PAN PAN : AGGPB2766G. : AGGPB2766G. : AGGPB2766G. : AGGPB2766G. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -24(3), 24(3), 24(3), 24(3), ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMRIT LAL, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2015 21.09.2015 21.09.2015 21.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E BEING DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARIN G THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR. 3. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BARRED BY LIMITA TION BY 113 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR ON THE ISSUE AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE ITA-2157 & 2158/DEL/2014 2 EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSED ON AFFIDAVIT THAT IT WAS DUE TO OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICER CLERK THAT THE ENTIRE RECOR D WAS MISPLACED AND GOT TAGGED IN SOME OTHER DEAD FILES AND WAS FINALLY T RACED ON 5 TH APRIL, 2014 AND APPEALS WERE PREFERRED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFT ER. IN THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND, ACCORDI NGLY, THE DELAY IN FILING BOTH THESE APPEALS IS CONDONED. ITA NO.2157/DEL/2014 ITA NO.2157/DEL/2014 ITA NO.2157/DEL/2014 ITA NO.2157/DEL/2014 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) : UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) : UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) : UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) :- -- - 4. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD.CIT APPEAL COMPLETELY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX A CT FOR RS.1,66,125/- CONTRARY TO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). IT IS A CASE WHERE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR NO EXP LANATION REGARDING NON-MAINTENANCE OR NON-PRODUCTION OF BILL S/VOUCHERS COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE W AS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDITION WAS SU STAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). I FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF S UPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE MADE COULD BE SUSTAINED BUT THIS FACT AL ONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF IN COME OR FILING ITA-2157 & 2158/DEL/2014 3 OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS/BILLS FOR THE E XPENSES CLAIMED BY IT, IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED BOGUS EXPENSES AND COULD BE PENALIZED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA-FIDE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.215 ITA NO.215 ITA NO.215 ITA NO.2158 88 8/DEL/2014 /DEL/2014 /DEL/2014 /DEL/2014 UNDER SECTION 271(1)( UNDER SECTION 271(1)( UNDER SECTION 271(1)( UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B BB B) : ) :) : ) :- -- - 7. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD.CIT APPEAL COMPLETELY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF INCOME TAX A CT FOR RS.1,66,125/- CONTRARY TO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). I FIND THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) O F THE ACT AT `1,66,125/-, WHICH IS ACTUALLY `10,000/- ONLY. I FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE CERTAIN INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATU TORY REQUIREMENT WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON AND THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE PENALTY IMPOSED AT `10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS REASONABLE ITA-2157 & 2158/DEL/2014 4 AND IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2157/DEL/2014 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.215 8/DEL/2014 IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, SHRI MANISH BHARGAV, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI, H.NO.604, WARD NO.3, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 030. 110 030. 110 030. 110 030. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -24(3), 24(3), 24(3), 24(3), ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, ROOM NO.186, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR