M/s Sandilla Roller Flour Mills, Hardoi V. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Hardoi

ITA 342/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4384 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.342/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II, HARDOI VS M/S SANDILLA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, H-21, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SANDILA, HARDOI PAN ABEFS 7497 Q (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, CA APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 12/07/2016 DATE OF HEARING 15 /0 7 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ITIALLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR, BUT LATER ON, ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED AND FIL ED REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,0 00/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE LEVIED. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS, HE PLAC ED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 115 TTJ 419 (DELHI) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) AND NOT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS 2 THERE WAS GOOD COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON TO COME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES IN LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APP EARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED A REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. I H AVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK (SUPRA), AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE APPEARE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING, THE DEFAULT COMMI TTED IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE IGNORED AND NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF T HE ACT SHOULD BE LEVIED. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION IN THE CASE OF M/S PANDEY FILLING STATION NIRWAZPUR ROZA, SHAHJAHANPUR IN THE INSTANT CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN SU BSEQUENT PROCEEDING, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE. ACCOR DINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWE D. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAT E MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- (S.K. YAD AV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/07/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR