Shri Anilkumar M. Jain, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2456/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5783 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2018
• 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
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2456/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI ANIL JAIN 221, MANEK BAUG SOCIETY, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD V/S THE DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAXPJ8826G APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 23 -03-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-03-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, AHMEDABAD DATED 08.07.2006 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013- 14. ITA NO. 2456 /AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2013-14 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER FRAMED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT BY WHICH THE A.O. HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/-. 3. NONE APPEARED BEFORE US IN SPITE OF NOTICE; THEREFO RE, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX PARTE. 4. WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR NON AT TENDANCE ON 19.08.2015. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT RESPOND TO THE D ATE OF HEARING ON 28.08.2015. THE A.O. WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT NON APPEARANCE /ATTENDANCE IS WILLFUL AND THEREFORE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S. 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A. O. HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT SHRI DEEPAK SONI, C.A. & MS. BIJAL P ANCHAL DULY AUTHORIZED ATTENDED THE HEARINGS AND MADE SUBMISSIONS FROM TIM E TO TIME. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE PLACED ON RECORD A ND WERE DULY CONSIDERED. THEREAFTER, THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUC H AND THE ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NON ATTENDANCE ON TWO OC CASIONS HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER INASMUCH AS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY WELL ATTENDED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVES AND THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. ITA NO. 2456 /AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2013-14 3 7. ON THE GIVEN FACTS, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 - 03- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28/03/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD