IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: S H RI N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER JITENDRAKUMAR KANODIA 2, D.C. CLOTH MARKET, SARANGPUR, AHMEDABAD - 380002 PAN: ACFPK3023L (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 11(4), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: S H RI SHALEEN PATNI , A.R. REVE NUE BY: S H RI M. K. SINGH , SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 06 - 2 015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 06 - 2 015 / ORDER P ER : RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. I T A NO . 234 5 / A HD/20 11 A SSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 I.T.A NO. 234 5/AHD/2011 A.Y. 20 08 - 09 PAGE NO JITENDRAKUMR KANODIA VS. ITO 2 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/ - IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,99, 730/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2009 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT QUESTION NAIRES U/S. 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 5 TH FEBRUARY , 2010 AND 24 TH MAY, 2010 WERE REQUIRED TO BE RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15 TH MARCH, 2010 AND 22 ND JUNE, 2010 BUT THESE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES REMAINED UN - COMPLIED , THEREFORE, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 2 71(1)(B) AND IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/ - THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI PAWAN AJMERA ULTIMATELY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE DETAILS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AT RS. 1,99,730/ - WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE DECLARED INCOME. WE ALSO FEEL THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) KEPT THE PROCEEDING IN DORMANT ALMOST FOR FIVE MONTHS THEN HE ISSUED ONE NOTICE AND DID NOT TAKE UP THE PROCEEDING AGAIN FOR 3 MONTHS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS REPRESENTING 16 ASSESSEES OF THE GROUP I.T.A NO. 234 5/AHD/2011 A.Y. 20 08 - 09 PAGE NO JITENDRAKUMR KANODIA VS. ITO 3 WHERE PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY A ND SOMEHOW ASSESSING OFFICER HA D MISSED TO NOTE THE ATTENDANCE , O THERWISE THERE IS NO DEFAULT AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. TO SOME EXTENT, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE , BECAUSE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION TO THE INCOME. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VISITING THE ASSESSEE WITH PENALTY. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE PENALTY. ORDER PR O NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 - 06 - 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S. SAINI ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12 /06 /2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,