Lopamudra Jayendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 3538/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8085 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH MEENA
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] ] ] ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3538/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) LOPAMUDRA JAYENDRABHAI PATEL, C/O. ARJUN STORES, 8, CHAITANYANAGAR, NR. PETROL PUMP, STADIUM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(2), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABAPP 0521 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH MEENA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 06/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/06/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-10, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- 10/ITO WD 1(3)(2)/217/15-16 DATED 29/09/2016 ARISIN G IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 27/04/2015 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENA LTY OF RS.10,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(B) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , ALTER AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEAR ING OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FILE D THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION, BUT WE DISMISS THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS OF SMALL VALUE. HENCE WE DECIDED TO AD JUDICATE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND DECLARED HER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, A ND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FRA MED U/S 147/144 OF THE ACT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND REM INDERS, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY THE SAME. THE NECESSARY D ETAILS OF THE NOTICE/ REMINDERS TO THE ASSESSEE STAND AS UNDER: SR NO. DATE PARTICULARS REMARKS 1. 22.07.2013 NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - 2. 07.04.2014 REMINDERS NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. 20.6.2014 REMINDER NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. 25.11.2014 NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE 5. 12.12.2014 REMINDER COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DA TED 12.12.2014 AND ALSO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05. 02.2015. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 11.02.2015 B UT AGAIN REMAINED NONCOMPLIANT ON THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE ISSUED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FINALLY, THE AO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE FOR LEVYIN G THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 19.3.2015, BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM HER SIDE. THEREFORE THE AO IMPOSED THE PENALTY FOR RS.10,000/- FOR THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT-A SUBMITTED THAT SHE DI D NOT RECEIVE THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BY TH E AO VIDE LETTER DATED ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - 22.07.2013. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE, BUT NO DEFAULT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F NON-RECEIPT OF NOTICE. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT-A DISREGARDED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4. IN THIS CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, NOTICES U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES. THE AO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF NOTICES ISSU ED AND ITS NON COMPLIANCE IN A CHART WHICH IS MENTIONED ON PAGE NO .1 OF THE AFORESAID PENALTY ORDER. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DATE NOTICE/LETTER INFORMATION CALLED FOR REMARKS 07.04.2014 REMINDER-I ISSUED BY ITO WD.7(3), ABAD FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 NOT COMPLIED 20.06.2014 LETTER ISSUED BY ITO, WD.7(3), ABAD RETURN OF INCOME AND DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION MADE BY YOU IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SUCH AS NAME OF THE PURCHASER/SELLER, SALE CONSIDERATION, COPY OF SALE DEED, COPY OR RETURN OF NOT COMPLIED 25.11.2014 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) R.W.S. 129 ISSUED BY ITO, WD.1(3)(2), ABAD INFORMATION CALLED FOR AS PER LETTER DATED 20/06/2014 ISSUED BY ITO WD.7(3), ABAD NOT COMPLIED 12.12.2014 LETTER ISSUED BY ITO, WD.1(3)(2), ABAD RE-FIXING HEARING ON 18/12/2014 ADJUSTMENT SOUGHT VIDE LETTER DATED 18/12/2014 FURTHER ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR WEEK VIDE ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - LETTER DATED 26/12/2014 AGAIN ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR WEEK VIDE LETTER DATED 02/01/2015 4.1 EVEN AFTER THIS, WHEN THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED IN WHICH IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR TO THE APPELLANT BY TH E AO THAT NON COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE WOULD ATTRACT PENAL PROCEE DINGS U/S.271(1)(B) F THE ACT, THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NO TICE AND EVENTUALLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD PASSED U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT . THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DESPITE BEING GIVEN ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES, THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER TO ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE AO. HENCE, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON C OMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPE AL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED EX-PARTE BY TH E AO VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2015 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED N ON-COMPLIANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 115 TTJ (DEL) 419 AS UNDER:- 2.5 WE ALSO FIND THAT FINALLY THE ORDER WAS PASSED UNDE R S. 143(3) AND NOT UNDER S. 144 OF THE ACT. THIS MEANS THAT SU BSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOO D COMPLIANCE AND THE DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO MAKE THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCES AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAME D UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMA INED NON-COMPLIANT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THUS, WE UPHO LD THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/06/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/06/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.3538/AHD/2016 LOPAMUDRA JAYENDR ABHAI PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12/06/2018. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12/06/2018. 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER