Smt Saroj Kumar, Bokaro V. ITO WARD-3(4), Bokaro

ITA 350/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0395 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHANTY
• Section: 271(1)(b); 142(1)

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 350 / RAN /201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SMT. SAROJ KUMAR, 25, LOHANCHAL, SECTOR - 12, BOKARO STEEL CITY. VS. ITO, WARD 3(4), BOKARO PAN/GIR NO. ADQPK 3924 G (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K.MOHANTY, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 11 / 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 11 / 2018 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HAZARIBAG , D ATED 18.3 .2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2 . IN GROUND NO.A & B OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT OF RS.20,000/ - . 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY IS SUING NOTICES ON 24.9.2009 AND 8.4.2010 AND, THEREFORE, ITA NO.349/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 : P A G E 2 | 4 HE LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT @ RS.10,000/ - FOR EACH DEFAULT. 4 . ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE WAS ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY AND THE CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENTS OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSE AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE FAILED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, HE WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 7 . AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, I FIND THAT AS THE ASSESSE FAILED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED ON 24.9.2009 AND 84.2010, THEREFORE, HE LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT @ RS.10,000/ - FOR EAC H DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE. THE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. IS THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS ITA NO.349/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 : P A G E 3 | 4 BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY TO SHOW THAT NOTICE OF HEARI NG SENT TO THE ASSESSE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSE OR NOT. SINCE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY REVENUE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, LEVY OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. I, THEREFORE, SET AS IDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE PENALTY OF RS.20,000/ - LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 / 11 /2018. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI ; DATED 26 / 11 /2018 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR. PVT.SECRETARY, ITAT, RANCHI ON TOUR 1. THE APPELLANT : SMT. SAROJ KUMAR, 25, LOHANCHAL, SECTOR - 12, , BOKARO STEEL CITY. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD 3(4), BOKARO 3. THE CIT(A) - HAZARIBAG 4. PR.CIT - HAZARIBAG 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// ITA NO.349/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 : P A G E 4 | 4