Riteek Steel, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7500 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: R K BHAGAT
• Section: 142(1); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , AM AND SH. H. S. SIDHU , JM ITA NO. 271/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 M/S RITEEK STEELS(B AHAL GARH) , I - 88, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE 1, NEW DELHI - 110052 VS ITO AD 19(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ABFR1995G A SSESSEE BY : SH. R. K. BHAGAT, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARIN G : 29 .12 . 2014 DA TE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 12 .2014 ORDER P ER N. K. SAINI , AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2009 OF LD. CIT(A) - X XII , NEW DELHI . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,000/ - LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 & 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: ITA NO. 271/DEL/2010 RITEEK STEEL 2 3. NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 16.08.2009, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 29.10.2009. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION RECEIVED. ON 30.10.2009 AGAIN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT THE REPLY, FIXING THE CASE FOR 10.11.2009. AGAIN THE A PPELLANT FAILED TO RESPOND. HE NEITHER ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR SENT ANY COMMUNICATION. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION I HOLD THAT AO HAS CORRECTLY LEVIED THE PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DISOBEY THE NOTICE , IF SERVED, TH EREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY THE NOTICES ISSUED EITHER BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) INTENTIONALLY. T HEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED . 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.02.2008 THAT THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED. ITA NO. 271/DEL/2010 RITEEK STEEL 3 7 . IN OUR OPINION THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS NOT LEVIABLE WHEN NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY THE NOTICES SERVED UPON HIM EITHER U/S 143(2) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DELETE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ( ORDER PRONOU N CED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 29 /12 / 2014 ) . SD/ - SD/ - ( H. S. SIDHU ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JU DICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 / 12 / 2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 29 .12 . 2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUT HOR 29 .12 . 2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK P S 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.