Rakesh Bindal, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4300/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 430020114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 4300, 4301, 4302 & 4303/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YR: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 RAKESH BINDAL VS. ACIT CEN. CIR. 5, K-1/32, MODEL TOWN-II, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AAOPB 2194 G ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA FCA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THESE ARE ASSESSEES 4 APPEALS CHALLENGING THE CON SOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI DATED 30-4-2013, CONFIRMING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) AS RAISED IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEARS RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05 TO 2007-08. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT SEARC H AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN ASSESSEES PREMISES AN D ALLEGATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND PENALTY NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(B ). IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF APPROACHIN G THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ALL THESE YEARS. ALREADY FOR SIMILAR DEFAULT THE ASSESSEE HAS 2 BEEN VISITED WITH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF RS. 10,0 00/- FOR EACH YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO APPEAL H AS BEEN FILED. ASSESSEE HAS OTHERWISE CO-OPERATED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENTS, TH E NON-RESPONSE FOR THIS NOTICE WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS EXAMIN ING THE REMEDY BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER. SINCE FOR THE SAME ASSESSM ENT YEARS SIMILAR PENALTIES HAVE BEEN LEVIED IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS U/S 271(1)(B) IT AMOUNTS TO UNJUSTIFIED SPELL OF CONTINUING PENALTIE S. 2.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS FOR ALL THE YEARS B EFORE THE CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IN THESE FOUR YEARS DESPITE THE FACTS FOR ALL THE YEARS BEING SIMILAR. REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE O RDER OF CIT(A) FOR THREE YEARS DELETING THE PENALTY. 2.2. LD. COUNSEL PLEADS THAT CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HA VE DISCRIMINATED THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR SOME ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SAME S ET OF FACTS. THE DELETION OF PENALTY IN AFORESAID THREE YEARS HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH INDICATES THAT IT HAS NO OBJECTION ON SIMILAR FACTS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THESE YEARS MAY BE D ELETED, MORE SO WHEN ALREADY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PENALIZED U/S 271(1)( B) AT RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTIONS FOR A DEFAULT ON THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 3 3. LD. D.R. IS HEARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES TAKING A LENIENT VIEW IN THE MATTER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE W E ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE PENALTY IN THE FOUR YEARS IN QUESTION OBSERVING THA T CIT(A) IN OTHER THREE YEARS, ON THE SIMILAR FACTS, HAS DELETED THE PENALT Y, WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24-01-2014. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24-01-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR