Doshi Shreyans Rasiklal,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 340/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Doshi Shreyans Rasiklal-HUF against a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer for alleged non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the assessment year 2012-13. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) but was contested in the Tribunal. The primary contention was whether the assessee had indeed complied with the notice by providing necessary documents and details regarding share purchases, which the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) allegedly overlooked. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the compliance with the notice and the procedural adherence by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299970 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1); 274; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . No .3 40 /A h d / 20 22 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 12- 13 ) Do sh i Shr e ya n s R a s ik l al - H UF 21 6 /2 17 , D e v N a nd a n Ma ll , Op p. Sa n ya s A s h r a m, A s hr a m R oa d, Ah me da bad - 3 80 00 6 V s . I T O War d - 1 ( 2) ( 1 ) , A h me da ba d [P AN N o.A A GH D 4 51 7B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. F. Jain, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 04.01.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 11.01.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 12.08.2022 for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding in levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for alleged non-compliance of notice without appreciating the fact of furnishing response to notice during the course of assessment proceedings rendering the penalty as erroneous. 2. As the assessee has already complied with the notice, there was no jurisdiction for levy of penalty. 3. On the facts of the appellant, no penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for alleged non-compliance of notice ought to have been levied. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or modify any ground of appeal.” ITA No. 340/Ahd/2022 Doshi Shreyans Rasiklal-HUF vs. ITO Asst.Year–2012-13 - 2 - 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 4,38,761/- in respect of unexplained purchases of 50,000 shares which were treated as non-genuine share transaction as well as the addition of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of unexplained credit in bank account. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice dated 01.11.2019 under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee did not file any reply, hence the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act as penalty for each default or failed to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed the details as well as written submissions before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer showing documents furnished in respect of purchase of shares dated 14.05.2019. The same was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee vide submissions dated 14.05.2019 given the detail reply alongwith documents / evidences in respect of purchases of shares to the Assessing Officer prior to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings. Thus, the ITA No. 340/Ahd/2022 Doshi Shreyans Rasiklal-HUF vs. ITO Asst.Year–2012-13 - 3 - assessee has not defaulted the notice under Section 142(1) and therefore, penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act does not sustain. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 11/01/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/01/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 05.01.2023 2. Date on which the type draft is placed before the Dictating Member 06.01.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .01.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .01.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.01.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 11.01.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................