Saaemah Begum , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 28(2) , Kolkata

ITA 2676/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5067 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2676/KOL/2018 SAAEMAH BEGUM A.Y. 2009-10 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 2676/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 SAAEMAH BEGUM (PAN:AECPB 7986 A ) VS. ITO, WARD-28(2), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 01.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.10.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-8, KOLKATA DATED 17.08.2018 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,74,380/- AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, HE ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 23.08.2010 FIXING THE HEARING ON 06.09.2010. ACCORDING TO HIM, NONE APPEARED SO HE SENT NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON 28.06.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 25.07.2011, HOWEVER ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO NON RESP ONDED. THEREFORE, HE ISSUED LETTER DATED 02.09.2010 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 14.0 9.2011 WHICH WAS ALSO NON- RESPONDED TO AND THEREFORE HE ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE ON 15.11.2011, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE RESPONDED VIDE LETTER DATED 29.11.2011 AND EXPLAINED THAT ALL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RELATED TO THE BUSINE SS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO DOCUMENTS / MATERIALS WERE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM AND SINCE THE ITA NO. 2676/KOL/2018 SAAEMAH BEGUM A.Y. 2009-10 ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO EXPLAIN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) FOR NON-COMPLIANC E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND U/S 142(1) AND THEREAFTER IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 20 ,000/-. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS CITING THE REASON THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT APPEAR. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL AND WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR VARIOUS AILMENTS, SO COULD NOT APPEAR PERSONALLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER RE-FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING BY NOTICE DATED 02.09.2011ON 14.09.201, THE ASSESS EE RECEIVED IT BELATEDLY AFTER 14.09.2011. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, ON A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE RE-FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS ONL Y POSTED ON 15.09.2011 AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE REACHED THE ASSESSEE AFTER TH E DATE OF HEARING, SO IN THE AFORESAID FACTS ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE TH E AO WAS NOT DELIBERATE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THEREFORE WE DELETE THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, THE LD. D.R POINTED OUT TO US DUR ING HEARING THAT ANY OUT- COME/DECISION ON THIS PENALTY APPEAL SHOULD NOT AFF ECT THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE QUANTUM ADDITION IF ANY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THEREF ORE, WE CLARIFY THAT THIS DECISION OF OURS, WILL NOT PRECLUDE IN ANY WAY THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WHILE THEY DECIDE THE MERIT OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION IF ANY MAD E BY THE AO. ITA NO. 2676/KOL/2018 SAAEMAH BEGUM A.Y. 2009-10 7. WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION, WE ALLOW THIS AP PEAL BY DIRECTING THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/-. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.10.20 20. SD/- SD/- (J( (P. M. JAGTAP) (A. T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07.10.2020 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- SAAEMAH BEGUM, 5/2/H/5, BHUKAILASH ROAD, KIDDERPORE, KOLKATA- 700023 2. RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-28(2), KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A)-8, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. CIT- , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA