M/s Patel Industries, Hardoi V. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Hardoi

ITA 343/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4141 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 27; 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.343/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.343/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 M/S PATEL INDUSTRIES, MADHOGANJ, HARDOI. PAN:AAFFP8774K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, HARDOI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 16/03/2016 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-2013 BY WHICH THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR, BUT LATER ON, ASSESSEE H AS APPEARED AND FILED REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER L EVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE LEVIED. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY S HRI RAJNISH YADAV, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 27/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 / 07 /2016 I.T.A. NO.343/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 2 CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 115 TTJ 419 (DELHI) IN WHICH IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) AND NOT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND TH E DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE IGNORED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, AS THERE WAS GOOD COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THER EFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON TO COME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL. 2. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED A REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHI KSHAK (SUPRA), AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING, THE DEFAULT COMMI TTED IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE IGNORED AND NO PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(B) OF THE 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 PAN DEY FILLING STATION NIRWAZPUR ROZA, SHAHJAHANPUR IN THE INSTANT CASE. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING, NO PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/07/2016) SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:29/07/2016 *SINGH I.T.A. NO.343/LKW/16 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 3 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