Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4845 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
20-09-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
16-07-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR (At e-Court, Pune) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.252 to 258/NAG/2017 नधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2002-03 to 2008-09 M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 16-C, Amarjyoti Apartment, SE Railway Colony, Telecom Nagar, Nagpur – 440 022 PAN : AABCS9010Q Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Nagpur (Appellant) Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This batch of seven appeals by the assessee poses a challenge to the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur on 02-05-2017 confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the A.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2008-09. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to search and assessment for the years under consideration were framed ex parte u/s 153C of the Act. In so far as the factual details qua the extant penalty for the A.Y. 2002-03 Appellant by Shri Kapil Hirani Respondent by Shri G.J. Ninawe Date of hearing 20-09-2022 Date of pronouncement 21-09-2022 ITA Nos. 252 to 258/NAG/2017 M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 2 are concerned, the AO issued a notice u/s.142(1) dt. 23-12-2009 for filing certain details. The assessee did not comply with such notice. Thereafter, a notice u/s.271(1)(b) was issued requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee still did not submit any explanation, which led to the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- by the AO. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the notice u/s.142(1) was not received by the assessee inasmuch as it was served on one Shri Chaitanya Kochar, who was neither a Director nor a Shareholder or Principal Officer of the company. The ld. CIT(A) remained unconvinced and affirmed the penalty order. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. Facts and circumstances for the other appeals under consideration are similar to those for the A.Y. 2002-03 3. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the notices, which led to the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for all the years under consideration, were admittedly issued and served upon one Shri Chaitanya Kochar, who was neither a Director nor ITA Nos. 252 to 258/NAG/2017 M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 3 a Shareholder or the Principal Officer of the assessee company. Shri Chaitanya Kochar and his family members, as per the Departmental record, were directors of a group of bogus companies engaged in providing accommodation entries. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the appeals are against the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) which talks of imposing penalty for non-compliance with the notice issued by the Department under certain sections including section 142(1). Merits of the additions become irrelevant insofar as the question of issuance of notice and the consequential penalty u/s.271(1)(b) is concerned. It goes without saying that notice u/s.142(1) needs to be properly served on the assessee who is required to submit his reply. If notice is served on a wrong person, who is not authorized to receive the same, it cannot be said that the assessee is at fault in not responding to such notice. It is apparent from the factual panorama recorded above that the notices were issued by the AO on a person who was not authorized to receive them on behalf of the assessee company. In such circumstances, there can be no question of imposing or confirming any penalty ITA Nos. 252 to 258/NAG/2017 M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 4 u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. I, therefore, order to delete the penalty for all the years under consideration. 4. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21 st September, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 21 st September, 2022 Satish आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. 5. The Pr.CIT Concerned DR, ITAT, Nagpur 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA Nos. 252 to 258/NAG/2017 M/s. Sterlight Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 20-09-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 21-09-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member -- JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. -- JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
Mehul