Sanjeevkumar Sonawane, Latur V. Income tax Officer,

ITA 30/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2418 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 147; 12; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO S . 29 & 30 /P U N/201 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 1 - 1 2 & 2012 - 13 SANJEEV KUMAR SONAWANE, SITARAM NAGAR, TQ: LATUR 413512 . / APPELLANT PAN: A NMPS8825N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2, LATUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 0 6 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 . 0 6 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOW LA, J M : BOTH T HE APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT (A) - 2 , AURANGABAD , DATED 0 2 . 0 9 .201 6 AND 30.08.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 1 1 - 1 2 AND 2012 - 13 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO SAME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NO. 29 /PUN/2017 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . ITA NO S . 29 & 30 /P U N/20 1 7 SANJEEV KUMAR SONAWANE 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 29 /PUN/2017 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. I HAVE BEEN LEVIED WITH PENALTY FOR NON ATTENDING S ECOND HEARING (OUT OF TWO CONSECUTIVE HEARINGS GIVEN BY AO) WHICH FALLS ON VERY NEXT DATE OF HEARING OF FIRST NOTICE, WHICH WAS DULY ATTENDED BY ME. 2. THERE WAS NO REASON OR ADDITIONAL POINT REMAINED TO BE EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE I HAVE NOT ATTENDED SECO ND HEARING. 3. CIT(A) HAS ERRED WITH FACT OF CASE AND OVERLOOKED THIS VALID POINT AND BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE THEREFORE HIS ORDER OF AGREEING WITH LEVY OF PENALTY SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 4. I APPEAL THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/SEC. 271(1)(B) OF RS.10,000/ - IS UNJUST AND NEED TO BE DROPPED. 4. THE APPEAL IN THE CASE HA S BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON DIFFERENT DATES, BUT NONE HAS PUT AN APPEARANCE. BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF THE ISSUE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 5. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT 10,000/ - . 6 . THE PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) REFLECTS THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE DATED 12.12.2014 TO ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIS ATTENDANCE ON 30.12.2014. AGAIN, ON 22.12.2014 ANOTHER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO ATTEND OFFICE ON 01.01 .2015. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTENDED OFFICE ON 30.12.2014, WHICH DATE FELL AFTER THE DATE OF SECOND NOTICE, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 01.01.2015. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR DEFAULT IN NON - COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED DATED 22.12.2014. IN THE FACTS OF CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED ON 30.12.2014 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED ON 12.12.2014, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN SIMULTANEOUSLY ISSUING ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 22.12.2014. WE FURTHER FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING ITA NO S . 29 & 30 /P U N/20 1 7 SANJEEV KUMAR SONAWANE 3 AFORESAID PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AFORESAID DEFAULT. HENCE, THE SAME IS CANCELLED. THE PRESENT APPEA L IS FILED AFTER DELAY OF 52 DAYS AND BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED, THE SAME IS CONDONED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 7 . NOW, COMING TO SECOND APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, WHICH IS ALSO FILED AFTER DELAY OF 29 DAYS. THE SAID DELAY IS ALSO CONDONED. 8 . PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF ACT HAS AGAIN BEEN LEVIED FOR NON - COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE DATED 22.12.2014. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 9 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF JUNE , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 21 ST JUNE , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / B Y ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE