Manoj Kumar Prithani, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4251/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82064 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: R S AHUJA
• Section: 142(1); 12

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4251 TO 4257/D/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4251/DEL/2013, 4252/D/2013,4253/D/2013, 4254/D/2013, 4255/D/2013, 4256/D/2013, 4257/D/20 13 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 MANOJ KUMAR PRITHANI, VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A-7, MAHIPALPUR, NH-8, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI. MAHIPALPUR CROSSING, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI-110037 (PAN: AFOPP4820Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.S. AHUJA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR O R D E R PER BENCH THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI DATED 9.5.201 3 IN APPEAL NO. 79 TO 85/12-13 FOR AY 2005-06 TO 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SEVEN G ROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL BUT EXCEPT GROUND NO.1 (A), OTHER GROUNDS ARE ARGUMENTA TIVE AND SUPPORTIVE TO THE MAIN GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4251 TO 4257/D/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 2 (I) THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT (A) ERRED IN (A) LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10000/- WITHOUT ANY JUST IFICATION AND ON ARBITRARY BASIS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE SEVEN ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALL DATED 26.03.2013 FROM A Y 2005-06 TO 2011-12 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 03.09.20 12 ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ALONG WITH QUEST IONNAIRE WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJESH SHARMA, AR OF THE ASSE SSEE APPEARED AND ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS MENTIONED IN ALL SEVEN ASSESSMENT ORDERS PLACED BEFORE US. THE DR H AS ALSO NOT OBJECTED THIS FACT THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AFTER ISSUANCE OF SAID NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED IN ALL SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 26.3.2013. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COM PLY WITH THE NOTICES DATED 03.09.2012 AND PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL SEVEN APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE RESPECTIVE PEN ALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 4251 TO 4257/D/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11.2014. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (CHANDRAMOHAN GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR