Kaushliya Devi Saboo, Pali V. ITO, Ward-1, Pali

ITA 404/JODH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2797 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANOOP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.404/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kaushliya Devi Saboo 40, Tirupati Fab Tex, Rajiv Colony Mandia Road, Pali Marwar Rajasthan. [PAN:ACLPS8565M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pali./ NFAC, Delhi (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Kothari, CA. Respondent by Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2024 ORDER Per: Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi {in brevity the CIT(A)}, order dated 13.09.2023 for A.Y. 2013- 14, challenging therein confirmation of the levy of penalty of Rs.20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. AO has imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act without rebutting the I.T.A. No.404/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 2 contention of the appellant raised before him. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that the assessee has filed the written submission which has not been found to be tenable thus the submissions of the appellant were rejected summarily in cryptic manner by both the lower authorities without appreciating the facts of the case that it was a covid period during which the notices were issued by the ld. AO u/s 142(1). The ld. AR contended that under the Covid period there was a panic amongst the society and complete called off ordered by the Government of India that constitute a sufficient / reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the appellant for non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) which has been although explained before the authorities below with the documentary evidence. Thus, the reason given by the ld. CIT(A) that the appellant has not given any documentary evidence and that the appellant has failed to reply notice issued on 17.08.2021 before the ld. CIT(A) are incorrect observation. He pleaded that the penalty levies is bad in law and same may be deleted. 3. The ld. DR relied on the impugned order. 4. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact on record that the ld. AO has imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in cryptic manner by passing one sentence order that “in response the above, the assessee has filed submission which is not found to be tenable.” I.T.A. No.404/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 3 5. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty order by stating incorrect facts that the appellant has not given any cogent reason or produce any documentary evidence as the appellant has filed reply to notices dated 17.08.2021 which has been admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his vague observation that the appellant wants to distract the attention of the authority, the entire submissions were misleading and out of context. In the preset case, in fact, the ld. CIT(A) was required to rebut the contention of the appellant assessee that of reasonable cause of Covid period and mere endorsement of the AO’s observation in penalty proceeding is not justified. It is seen that the issue of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) before the AO has neither been discussed nor appreciated by either of the lower authorities. It is further seen that the appellant has filed a detailed paper book before the ld CIT(A) and the ld. AO in quantum appeal which prima facie approved cooperative attitude of the appellant assessee. 6. From the record, it is evident that the addition made in the hands of the appellant assessee on the basis of seized diary found from the third party i.e. Mr. Mahendra Kankariya where the assessment has already achieved finality where the alleged disputed income was declared under the VSVS and all taxes has been paid. Thus, the amount disputed if any has already been taxed in the hands of her husband. I.T.A. No.404/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4 7. Considering the totality of the facts, we are of the view that the AO has passed the penalty order in cryptic manner and the same has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and even addressing the sufficient cause of Covid period that can never be approved. Accordingly, we hold that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is infirm and adverse to the facts on record. Accordingly, the impugned order is held to be bad in law. 8. In the above view, we accept the grievance of the assessee is genuine and as such the penalty of Rs.20,000/- is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 404/Jodh/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.03.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (Dr. M. L. Meena ) Judicial Member Accountant Member AKV (On Tour) Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order