Ajitbhai Jeshingbhai Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2724/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8092 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AJITBHAI JESHINGHBHAI SHAH HUF, B1 & 2 DEVDARSHAN TOWER, OPP. SHANTI TOWER, NEHRUNAGAR CROSS ROAD, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD - 380015 PAN: AAEHS4859R (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI HIMANSHU SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 06 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 06 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 , ARIS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 5 , AHM EDABAD DATED 12 - 09 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 ) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN POINTS OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CON FIRMING PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1 )(B) O F INCOME - TAX ACT FOR RS. 10,000/ - . I T A NO . 2724 / A HD/20 16 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 I.T.A NO. 2724 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO AJITBHAI JES H INGHBHAI SHAH HUF VS. ITO 2 3. THE BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 ,H OWEVER, NEITHER ANYBODY HAS ATTENDED ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED. THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2 4 SEP, 2015 TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR NOT MAKING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE CITED NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTL Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 10000 / - U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR FAILING TO MAKING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A). HAS ISSUED NOTICES DATED 12 TH JULY, 2016, 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 AND 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 RESPECTIVELY ,H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFOR E , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS. 10000/ - LEVIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT HEARING FIXED ACCORDING TO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ATTENDED, H OWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HA D ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAIL BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND NOT SEC.144 OF THE ACT. HE HAS ALSO PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES IN ITA NO. 958/AHD/ 2011 DATED 04 - 03 - 2015 AND M/S KANA K PRO DUCTS PVT. LTD. VIDE ITA NO. 1810 /AHD/2012 DATED 29 - 06 - 2016. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - U/S. I.T.A NO. 2724 /AHD/20 16 A.Y. 2013 - 14 PAGE NO AJITBHAI JES H INGHBHAI SHAH HUF VS. ITO 3 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NOT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 143(2) O F THE ACT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO ATTEND THE HEARING DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) .T HEREFORE THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS SUSTAINED AS EX - PARTE BY THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSION FILED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING IT ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY FAILURE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 21 - 06 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 21 /06 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,