Wahabuddin, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4177/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3536 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Section: 142(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 4177/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011 - 1 2 ITA NO. 4178/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 WAHABUDDIN, C/O VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A BEPW2480P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.11 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 11 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 20.07.2016 OF LD. CIT(A), MEERUT. 2. NOBODY WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WE THEREFORE, PROCEEDED EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3 . COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO S . 4177 & 4178 /DEL /201 6 WAHABUDDIN 2 4. THE ONLY ISSU E RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEAL S RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - IN EACH OF THE YEAR U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS THE ACT). 5 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 04.04.2014 ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEP OSITED RS.57,60,290/ - I N ICICI BANK ON DIFFERENT DATES, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 02.09.2014 AT AN INCOME OF RS.57,60,290/ - . THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE S U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 14.05.2014 AND 14.08.2014 WERE ISSUED FOR CO MPLIANCE ON 28.05.2014 AND 27.08.2014 RESPECTIVELY BUT THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO TAKE THE NOTICES. HE, THEREFORE, INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY THE NOTICE DATED 02.09.2014 ISSUED FOR COMPLIANCE ON 30.09.2014 AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION . 6 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THERE WAS REFUSAL TO TAKE/RECEIVE NOTICES WAS MISPLACED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD LEFT OUT THE HOUSE EARLY MORNING AND THERE WAS NO AUTHORIZED PERSON TO TAKE THE NOTICE S . THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO GA VE A ITA NO S . 4177 & 4178 /DEL /201 6 WAHABUDDIN 3 REPEATED NOTICE S U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE AND EVEN THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO REFUSED. 7 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO , T HEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT DATED 02.09.2014 WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. 8 . WE H AVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO DID NOT LEVY THE PENALTY FOR THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 15.05.2014 AND 14.08 .2014. THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY THE NOTICES DATED 02.09.2014. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ON THE SAID DATE, HE WAS NOT AT HOME AND THERE WAS NO AUTHORIZED PERSON TO TAKE THE NOTICE . THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS FALSE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT AT HOME AND HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO REFUSE TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO S . 4177 & 4178 /DEL /201 6 WAHABUDDIN 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DELETED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . (O RD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06/11 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 06/11 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 06.11 .201 7 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06 .1 1 .201 7 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRON OUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.