Shri Parasar Shantilal Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3437/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5643 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TALSANIA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , .., SN ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1-7 3432 TO 3438 /AHD/2016 2007-08 TO 2013-14 SHRI PARASAR SHANTILAL PANDYA, 1/144, 4 TH FLOOR, NARESHWAR FLATS, NR. C.P. NAGAR, SOLA ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380061 PAN : ANMPP 4723 B ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD 8-14 3121 TO 3127 /AHD/2016 2007-08 TO 2013-14 SHRI PARASAR SHANTILAL PANDYA, SOLA ROAD, AHMEDABAD-61 PAN : ANMPP 4723 B ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), AHMEDABAD ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT TALSANIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 14/07/2017 # % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/07/2017 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THE PRESENT FOURTEEN APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE IN STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013-14. THE SOLIT ARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO B E VISITED WITH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 14.10.2014 AND 20.01.2015. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438/AHD/2016 ARE TIME BAR RED BY 101 DAYS AND ITA NOS. 3121 TO 3127/AHD/2016 ARE TIME BARRED BY 80 DA YS. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT WE HAVE HEARD ROUGHLY 160 APPEALS OF T HE FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING A FEW BUSINESS CONCERNS AND, OUT OF THESE , SOME OF THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED INCLUDING THE ABOVE REFERRED APPEALS FI LED BY SHRI PARASAR SHANTILAL ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438 & 3121 TO 3127/AHD/2016 PARASAR SHANTILAL PANDYA VS. ACIT AYS : 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 2 PANDYA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AFFIDAVITS EXPLAINING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED B Y HIM THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF EACH NOTICE AND HE HAS ISSUED MULTIPL E NOTICES ON THE FAMILY MEMBERS, IT WAS CUMBERSOME EXERCISE TO COMPILE THE DETAILS OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND PREPARE THE APPEAL IN TIME. AFTER GOING THROUG H THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HE WAS PROHIBITED B Y REASONABLE CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME; THER EFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL S ON MERITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF IN DIA GREEN REALITY PVT. LTD. ON 15.03.2013. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER TH E SEARCH OPERATION ALONG WITH OTHER CASES OF THE GROUP AND NOTICES UNDER SEC TION 153A OF THE ACT WERE ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE ASSESSME NT YEARS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142( 1) OF THE ACT ON 14.10.2014. THIS NOTICE WAS NOT REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMIL ARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 20.01.2015 AND THIS NOTICE ALSO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE, HE INITIATED P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND PASSED TWO ORDERS, I.E., DATED 22.04.2015 VIDE WHICH HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- FOR VIOLATI ON OF NOTICE DATED 14.10.2014 IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR (AYS 2007-08 TO 2013-14) AND IN THE SECOND ORDER DATED 28.08.2015 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSE D PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR (AYS 2007-08 TO 2013-14) FOR V IOLATION OF NOTICE DATED 20.01.2015. 4. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISPOSED O F THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TWO GROUPS. IN ONE GROUP VIDE ORDER DA TED 28.06.2016, HE DEALT WITH THE VIOLATION OF NOTICE DATED 14.10.2014 AND IN THE NEXT GROUP VIDE ORDER DATED 28.06.2016 HE DEALT WITH THE VIOLATION OF NOTICE DA TED 20.01.2015. IN BOTH ORDERS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438 & 3121 TO 3127/AHD/2016 PARASAR SHANTILAL PANDYA VS. ACIT AYS : 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 3 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN NOW APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS NOTICE DA TED 14.10.2014 IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY HE HAS IGNORED THE STATUTORY NOTICE. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTY IMPOSED QUA NOTICE DATED 14.10.2014 IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUSTAINABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE D ISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438/AHD/2016 AND CONFIRM THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN AYS 2 007-08 TO 2013-14 FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE DATED 14.10.2014. 6. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT (SUPRA) FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 14.10.2014, THE SUBSEQUENT PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME DEFAULT DOES NOT SURVIVE AS HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.6131/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHA RANI VS. DCIT, VIDE ORDER DATED 06.05.2015, REPORTED IN [2015] 60 TAXMANN.COM 131 (DELHI-TRIB), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) CA NNOT BE IMPOSED FOR EACH AND EVERY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2), WHICH REM AINED NOT COMPLIED WITH ON PART OF ASSESSEE, BUT IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO FI RST DEFAULT ONLY. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA), DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN AY 2007-08 TO 2013-14 FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE DATED 20.01.2015 AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438 & 3121 TO 3127/AHD/2016 PARASAR SHANTILAL PANDYA VS. ACIT AYS : 2007-08 TO 2013-14 - 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEARI NG ITA NOS. 3432 TO 3438/AHD/2016 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE BEARING ITA NOS. 3121 TO 3127/AHD/2016 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH JULY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- N.K. BILLAIYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (RAJPAL YAD AV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 28/07/2017 **BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. % , % , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % ITAT, AHMEDABAD