Satyanarain and sons, Basti V. Income Tax Officer, Basti

ITA 421/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0338 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.421/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.421/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-2015 M/S SATYANARAYAN AND SONS, PANDEY BAZAR, PURANI BASTI, BASTI. PAN:AAWFS 2725 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-1, LUCKNOW DATED 26/02/2018 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 14/01/2016 AN D LEVY OF PENALTY U/S APPELLANT BY SHRI H. RAHMAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 28/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 / 03 /201 9 I.T.A. NO.421/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 2 271(1)(B) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. LEARNED A. R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/08/2016 HAD BEEN COMPLETE D IN REGULAR COURSE U/S 143(3), WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 144 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, NO PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271(1)(B) SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED BY IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-. 3. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PENALTY WAS I MPOSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) TH EREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FINALLY THE ASSESSEE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 14/01/2016 IS MERELY A TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR ANY PUNISHMENT BY WAY OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED B Y LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:29/03/2019 *SINGH I.T.A. NO.421/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR