Shri Vijaykumar B. Vaghani, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Surat

ITA 2233/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5972 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BHARADWAJ
• Section: 142(1); 147; 27; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIJAYKUMAR B. VAGHANI, B - 90 GURUNAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. BARODA PRESTAGE, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT PAN: AAOPV6439J (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 9(4), SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI A.K. BHARADWAJ , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 04 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 05 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPE AL FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - V, SURAT DATED 21 - 07 - 2014 IN APPEAL NO. CAS/V/119/2013 - 14 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 271(1 ) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 2233 / A HD/20 14 A SSESSMEN T YEAR 2010 - 11 I.T.A NO. 2233 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO VIJAYKUMAR B. VAGHANI VS. ITO 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 30,000/ - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(B) AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYD THAT A. PENALTY OF RS. 30,0000 U/S 27 1(1)(B) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED OR REDUCED. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE - OPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 27.02.2012 ON THE BASIS OF THE AIR INFORMATION TO VERIFY THE CREDIT CARD BILL AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,43,539/ - PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS MENTIONED BELOW: - NO. PARTICULARS OF NOTICE / LETTER DATE OF ISSUE DATE O F HEARING REMARKS 1 NOTICE U/S. 148 27.02.2012 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF SERVICE NO COMPLIANCE 2 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) 08.10.2012 17.10.2012 NO COMPLIANCE 3 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) 07.12.2012 17.12.2012 NO COMPLIANCE 4 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) 18.1 2.2012 24.12.2012 NO COMPLIANCE 5 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 04.01.2013 16.01.2013 NO COMPLIANCE I.T.A NO. 2233 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO VIJAYKUMAR B. VAGHANI VS. ITO 3 THEREAFTER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED HIS INABILITY TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE ON NON RECEIPT AND SERVING OF THE SAID NOTICES AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 30,000/ - U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INTIMATED ANY CHARGE IN THE ADDRESS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PAN WAS ALLOTTED TO HIM. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 13 9(4) FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT FROM THE ADDRESS OF B - 90, GURUNAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. BARODA PRISTAGE, VARACHHA R OAD, SURAT WHEREAS THE ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C - 7, GURUNAGAR SOCIETY BECAUSE OF WHICH THE NOTICES THROUGH POST COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSSESSEE . WE FIND THAT ABOVE STATED FACTS INDICATE T HAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE REASON OF NON - COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF NON - SERVING OF NOTICES A S ELABORATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, WE CON SIDERED THAT I.T.A NO. 2233 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO VIJAYKUMAR B. VAGHANI VS. ITO 4 THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY , THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 04 - 05 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 04 /05 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,