SUREKHA EXIM P. LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS SUREKHA HOLDING P. LTD), MUMBAI V. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 402/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 40219914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTAM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHA GOPALAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 M/S. SUREKHA EXIM PVT. LTD., (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUREKHA HOLDING PVT. LTD.), D-1, SINDHU HOUSE, NANBHAI LANE, MUMBAI-400 001 PAN-AAACS 7281E VS. THE ACIT 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MS. NISHA GOPALAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHANTAM BOSE DATE OF HEARING :3.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.11.2011 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT.23.10.2009 DISPUTING THE CON FIRMATION OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAC T THAT AO ISSUED NOTICES DT. 22.10.2007 AND SECOND NOTICE ON 17 TH JUNE, 2008 AND OBSERVE THAT SAID NOTICES WERE SERVED ON ASSESSEE BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH. THEREFORE, AO LEVIED PENALTY AGGREGATING TO RS. 20, 000/- I.E. RS. 10,000/- EACH FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF ABOVE SAID NOTICES. IN T HE FIRST APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. ITA NO. 402/M/2010 2 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE DT. 22.10.2007 AND ATTENDED OFFICE OF AO BUT IT WAS INFORMED THAT HE WAS BUSY IN TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT AND FRE SH NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SAID FACT W AS ALSO STATED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN THE NOTE OF ABO VE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE. TO SUBSTANTIATE HER SUBMISSION, LD. AR RE FERRED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE DT. 17.6.2008 WAS ADDRESSED AT THE OFFICE WHICH WAS NOT OPERATED AND HENCE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SAME. THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL NON-COMPLIANCE AND NON-COMPLIANCE WAS B ONAFIDE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED S UBSEQUENTLY BEFORE AO ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2008 AND FURNISHED REQUISITE DETAILS BEFOR E HIM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME BE CANCELLED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE AB OVE FACTS SAVE AND ACCEPT RELYING ON ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR AND A LSO GOING THROUGH STATEMENT OF FACTS AS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHIC H ARE ATTACHED WITH FORM NO. 35 AND PLACED ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT OF ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED ON 22.10.2007 AND 17.6.2008. HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED BY CANCELLING PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/ ( P.M. JAGTAP) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 RJ ITA NO. 402/M/2010 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI