Shri Raj Kumar Arora, Kanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-1, Kanpur

ITA 267/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5747 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(b); 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.267/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.267/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 SHRI RAJ KUMAR ARORA, 120/500(10), LAJPAT NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABKPA 8096 M VS. DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, KANPUR DATED 25/01/2018 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- WHICH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. IN THIS CASE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. LATER ON, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) W ERE ISSUED FIXING COMPLIANCE ON 09/09/2016. ON THE DATE FIXED, NEITH ER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. WH EN NO COMPLIANCE WAS APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C. A. RESPONDENT BY S HRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 30/01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 / 01 /201 9 I.T.A. NO.267/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 2 MADE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.1 0,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OF FICER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO ALSO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY. 3. LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT COMPLIANC E WITH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSY IN F ILING REQUISITE FORMS UNDER THE INCOME DECLARATION SCHEME, 2016 AS WELL AS IN F INALIZATION OF BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME TAX RETURNS WHICH WERE TIME BARRIN G ON 17/10/2016. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE COMPLIANCE OF NO TICE DATED 31/08/2016 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FINALLY PASSED U/S 147/153(3) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE, THE PE NALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 4. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PENALTY WAS I MPOSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) TH EREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FINALLY THE ASSESSEE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF SMT. REETA PATEL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER IN I.T.A. NO.598/ LKW/2016 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSE E DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTI CES ISSUED I.T.A. NO.267/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 3 U/S 142(1) ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) AN D ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOTED IN THEIR ORDER AND THE REFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B ) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FINALLY THE ASSESSEE DI D APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THEREAFTER, THE MATTER TRA VELLED UPTO TRIBUNAL, WHICH VIDE ORDER DATED 30/01/2017 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. TH EREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . WE REVERSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE APPEAL, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE REVER SE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/01/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:31/01/2019 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR