Shri Rambhai M. Rabari, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 317/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94721 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L SHARMA SR DR RESPONDEN
• Assessee Lawyers: G A MEHTA
• Section: 148; 139

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS317-320/AHD/2015: ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11: PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD. [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NOS.317 TO 320/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2010-11 SHRI RAMBHAI M. RABARI, 18, RABARI NIWAS, SHANTINAGAR, VAISHALI TOWNSHIP, VASANA, AHMEDABAD. ....................APPELLANT PAN AHAPR 2170F VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), AHMEDABAD. . .RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: G.A. MEHTA........ FOR THE APPELLANT B. L. SHARMA, SR.DR...... F OR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: 1 ST SEPT., 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 13 TH NOV, 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S SEPARATE B UT MATERIALLY IDENTICAL ORDERS DATED 19 TH DECEMBER, 2014, UPHOLDING PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT, HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AMOUNTING TO RS.5,000/- EACH, WHICH ARE COMMON FOR ALL THESE YEARS. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- I.T.A. NOS317-320/AHD/2015: ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11: PAGE 2 OF 3 WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN REJECTING APPEAL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 OF RS.5,000/- FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-0 8. 3. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURNS LATE WITHOUT ANY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 139 OR 148 OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TAXPAYER WITH RELATIVELY MODEST INCOME WITHOUT ANY COMPLEX BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ON THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRAYED FOR A LENIE NT VIEW OF THE MATTER AND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING DROPPED. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, HOWEVER, IMPOSED THE PENALTY, LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL NOTED THA T THE APPEALS ARE LATE AND TIME BARRED AS SUCH. THE PETITION SEEKING CONDONATI ON OF DELAY WAS REJECTED. EVEN ON MERITS, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED. THE ASS ESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF A PPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ON ACCOUNT OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS FACED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVIDENCE FOR WHICH WAS DULY PRODUCED, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY T HE CIT(A) AND THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED. ON MERITS, I FIND THAT GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT OF TAX AND LIMITED BUSINE SS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE THE PENALTIES NEED TO BE DELETED. AT A TIM E WHEN GOVERNMENT IS MAKING ALL OUT EFFORTS TO PERSUADE MORE PEOPLE TO F ILE RETURNS VOLUNTARILY, AND CREATE A CONDUCIVE ATMOSPHERE FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE AUTHORITIES NEED NOT BE I.T.A. NOS317-320/AHD/2015: ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11: PAGE 3 OF 3 PEDANTIC IN THEIR APPROACH. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. I DO SO AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- PRAMOD KUM AR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R) AHMEDABAD, THE 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPON DENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD