, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3102/MDS/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. ASHA THAYER, C/O S. VENKATRAM & CO., 218, T.T.K. ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : ADGPA 8322 C V. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 06.04.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.04.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, CHENN AI, DATED 10.09.2014, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT. ACC ORDING TO LD. 2 I.T.A. NO.3102/MDS/14 REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WAS NO PERSON IN INDIA TO HAN DLE THE MATTER. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE N OTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE A CT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE EMPLOYEE OF THE POWER OF AT TORNEY. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF EITHER THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE H ERSELF. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE NO TICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WAS REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF TH E ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI DAS GUPTA, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE A CT. SINCE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE, ACCORDING TO LD. D.R., TH E CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSES SEES CLAIM IS THAT SHE IS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN AND THE NOTICE WA S SERVED ON THE EMPLOYEE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT 3 I.T.A. NO.3102/MDS/14 CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NO TICE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SERVED EITHER ON THE ASSESSEE OR ON THE P OWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTIC E EITHER ON THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT OR ON THE ASSESSEE HERSELF, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT RESUL T IN LEVY OF PENALTY. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUS E ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED UN DER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. A CCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A PPEALS) IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 8 TH OF APRIL, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 8 TH APRIL, 2015. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.3102/MDS/14 / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-VII, CHENNAI-34 4. 1 92 /CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.