Smt. Veena Kapoor, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-3(2), Chandigarh

ITA 293/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7512 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.293/CHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) SMT. VEENA KAPOOR, VS. THE ITO, SCF-1, SECTOR 20-C, WARD 3(2), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AIGPK9583N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-1, CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'CIT(APPEALS)]. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REGARDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), AMOUNTING TO RS .10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR AND FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTI CE ISSUED TO IT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(B) OF ITA NO.293/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 2 THE ACT WAS LEVIED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUT ORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 17.6.201 6, 14.7.2016 AND 29.7.2016. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N OT ATTENDING TO THE SAID NOTICES AS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO THE CIT(APPEALS). DRAW ING OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE NOTICE DATED 17.6.2016 FIXING THE D ATE OF HEARING ON 23.6.2016 COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS RECEIVED LATE I .E. ONLY ON 17.7.2016, MUCH BEYOND THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING I N THE SAID NOTICE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN LADY OF ALMOST 63 YEARS OF AGE AND WAS A PENSIONER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS , GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SHE H AD MET WITH AN ACCIDENT IN SEPTEMBER, 2015 AND DUE TO WHIC H HER FOUR RIBS HAD GOT BROKEN AND WAS UNDERGOING TREATME NT FOR HER FRACTURE AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS. IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE ASSESSEE BEING IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION IN THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST, THE NOT ICES COULD NOT BE SENT TO HER COUNSEL AND HENCE IT RESUL TED IN THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES DATED 14.7.2016 AND 29.7.2016 FIXING THE HEARING FOR 21.7.2016 AND 5.8. 2016 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT HER SON WAS L OOKING AFTER HER AND BEING FOCUSED MORE ON THE RECOVERY OF HIS MOTHER, THE NOTICES REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THERE WAS A DELAY IN APPEARING BEFORE THE ITA NO.293/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 3 ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HER CONTROL. IT WAS THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER WITHO UT AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26.8.2016 FIXING THE HEARING OF THE C ASE ON 31.8.2016 AND WHEN THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WENT TO ATTEND THE DATE HE WAS TOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT AVAILABLE AS HE WAS IN THE FIELD FOR SURVEY DUTY. T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THOUGH SUBMITTED A PART REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT WAS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE SHOW C AUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND TO EXPLA IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE NOTICES REMAI NED UNCOMPLIED WITH. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THEREAFTER ON THE NEXT DATE ITSELF, WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY FURTHER OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING, ORDER U/S 271(1)(B) WAS PASSED LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- ON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED TO HE R AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AN D THAT ALL THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY REFLECT TH E CASUAL APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE WHO COULD HAVE VERY WELL REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATES OR EXPL AIN THE ITA NO.293/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 4 REASON FOR THE SAME, INSTEAD NOT ATTENDING THE HEAR ING AT ALL. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, STATED THAT IT WAS A FI T CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS DULY DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING TO THE HEARING ON THE IMPUGNED DATES. NONE OF THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE NOTICES WAS RECEIVED LATE OR T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN WHO HAD MET WITH AN A CCIDENT AND WAS, THEREFORE, IN NO CONDITION TO PROMPTLY ATT END TO THE HEARING, WE FIND ARE SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE NON COMPLIANCE. FURTHER CONSID ERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE THERE AFTER DULY ATTENDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DULY SCR UTINIZING THE CASE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLEAR THAT NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICES WAS UN-INTENTIONAL AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REASON ABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING THE CASE ON THE SAID DATES OF HEARING. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND PENALTY, THE REFORE, LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10, 000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.293/CHD/2018 A.Y.2014-15 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.07.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH