M/s Budhiraja Stores, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 413/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 41321514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 413/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S BUDHIRAJA STORES, V ITO, WARD 2(3), SCO NO.2, SECTOR 17E, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAFFB-3759E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT : SHRI MANJEET SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.07.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2012 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 110/10-11 DATED 20. 01.2012 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 66,000/- U/S 271FB OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR ANY ADDITION, D ELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 2 3. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS FBT RET URN U/S 115WD(1). ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 115WH WAS ISSU ED. ASSESSEE FILED FBT RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID N OTICE ON 22.08.2008. THE FBT RETURN WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILE D BY 31.10.2006. THE SAME WAS FILED ON 22.08.2008, AFTE R A DELAY OF 660 DAYS. NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE AO, TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE INCORPORATED FOR THE FIRST TIME, HENCE, THERE EXIST A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUC H DELAY, COVERED U/S 273B OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AC CEPT THE REASON OF DELAY AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISM ISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST PENA LTY IMPOSED U/S 271FB OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.66,00 0/- BEFORE US. 4. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'AR' MERELY STATED THAT PROVISIONS WERE INCORPORATED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND, HENCE, DELAY OCCURRED. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT INCORPORATION OF PROVIS IONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME CANNOT CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE GROUN D WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY OF RS.66,000/- BEING MEAGER, AND HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS DELETED. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT SUCH DELETION IS PU RELY MADE 3 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THIS ORDER IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED AS A JUDICIAL PRECEDENT , IN FUTURE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25 TH JULY,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH `