Smt. Sumitradevi Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2453/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8087 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SUMITRADEVI SHAH, 221, MANEKBAUG SOCIETY, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD PAN: ACKPS9184M (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE 5(2), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 06 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 06 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THESE TWO ASSES SEE S APPEAL S FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 , AR ISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , AHM EDABAD - 5 DATED 08 - 08 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 ) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEAL THER EFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THESES APPEAL ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER BY THIS CO MMON ORDER BY TAKING ITA 2453/AHD/ 16 AS LEAD CASE AND ITS FINDING WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER CASE ALSO. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 2453/AHD/2016 I T A NO S . 2453 & 245 4 / A HD/20 16 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 I.T.A NO S . 2453 & 2454 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SUMITRADEVI SHAH VS. DCIT 2 1.0 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ORDER U/S 271(1)(B) BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW SINCE AND IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE FACTS OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT B E SO HELD NOW. 2.0 THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 271(1)(B) ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND UNFOUNDED. THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 3.0 THE APPELLANT HAD RESPECTFULLY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) AND IN THE E VENT OF ANY FAILURE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE I.E. INSUFFICIENT PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE OR NON - AVAILABILITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE OFFICE. THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE QUASHED. 3.1 THE O RDER FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AS NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUE D NOTICE U/S. 142(1) REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REQUISITE INFORMATION ON 29 TH SEP, 2015. HOWEVER ON THE DATE OF HEARING NEITHER ANYBODY HAS ATTENDED NOR FURNISHED ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 30 TH SEP, 2015 ASKING T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 10000 ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT W ITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT( A) HAS SUSTAINED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5 . DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOBODY HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE , H OWEVER, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 4 TH APRIL, 2 018 WAS FURNISHED. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSSESSEE THAT SHE IS AN OLD LADY OF MORE THAN 80 YEARS AND HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM SEVERAL PHYSICAL PROBLEMS ARISING BECAUSE OF OLD AGE. H ER HUSBAN D WHO W AS M O RE THAN 80 YEARS OLD WAS ALSO SUFFERING FROM SEVERAL PROBLEMS AND NEEDED CONSTANT ATTENTION AND HER HUSBAND PASSED AWAY IN FEB, 2016. THEREFORE , SHE STATED THAT HER POOR HEALTH AND SICKNESS OF HER HUSBAND WERE THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PAYING A TTENTION TO THE MATTER IN TIME. FURTHER , ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED AND I.T.A NO S . 2453 & 2454 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SUMITRADEVI SHAH VS. DCIT 3 NECESSARY COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE NOTICE DATED 142(1) HAD DIRECTED TO PROVIDE EXHAUSTIVE DETAILS FOR WHICH HER REPRESENTATIVE HAD ATTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING THE REPRESENTATIVE BELIEVED THAT REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 6 TH NOV, 2015 T H E NOTICE DATED 14 TH SEP, 2015 WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH. SHE HA D FURTHER STATED THAT ALL THE HEARING FIXED FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER FULLY COMPLIED WITH. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. AFTER HEARING T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD WE CONSIDERED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING FIXED BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF T HE ACT BECAUSE OF OLD AGE , ILL HEALTH AND ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED T H AT ASSESSEE HAS THEREAFTER MADE FULL COMPLIANCE TO ALL THE HEARING TAKEN PLACE IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. L OOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS, WE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEEE HAS REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NOT MAKING COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 6 . IN THE RESULT , BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 21 - 06 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 2 1 /06 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) I.T.A NO S . 2453 & 2454 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO SUMITRADEVI SHAH VS. DCIT 4 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,