Sawarmal Goyal, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4315/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77749 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHALINI VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY MITTAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.4314/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHALINI GOYAL, ]44, ENGINEERS ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI. PAN : AAEPG8998B VS. A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI. ITA NO. 431 5 TO 4320 /DEL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2009-10 ITA NO.4321 TO 4324/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2007-08 ITA NO.4326, 4325 & 4327 TO 4332/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 , 2009-10 & 2005-06 TO 2 010-11 S AWARMAL GOYAL, ]44, ENGINEERS ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI. PAN : AAEPG9000C VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY MITTAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. SHALINI VERMA, SR. DR ITA NOS.4314 TO 4332/DEL/2013 2 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS BUNCH OF 19 FILES INVOLVE TWO ASSESSEES IN RE SPECT OF WHOM PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEAL S, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. ON A REPRESENTATIVE BASIS, WE ARE TAKING UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHALINI GOYAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 IN ITA NO.4314/DEL/2013. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS APPEAL AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEE DINGS ALONG WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND GROUP CONCERNS ON 7.01.2 010. NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED REQUESTING TO FILE THE RETURN F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 08.11.2010. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16.12.2010 CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION. NO RETURN/REPLY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON 16.09.2011, A NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) WAS ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSES SEE TO SHOW REASONS AS TO WHY PENALTY BE NOT IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION. A ITA NOS.4314 TO 4332/DEL/2013 3 REPLY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL THE STAF F MEMBERS AND THE CONCERNED PERSONS WERE OCCUPIED IN FINALIZATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AS INCOME TA X RETURN FOR AY 2011-12 WAS TO BE FILED ON 30.09.2011. THE ASSE SSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE I N FILING THE RETURN/DOCUMENTS WAS UNINTENTIONAL. THE ASSESSEE F URTHER REQUESTED FOR GRANT OF TIME OF 15/20 DAYS FOR DOING THE NEEDFUL. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) AMOUNTING TO ` 10,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT ADJOURNMENTS WERE REQUESTED ON THE GROUND THAT SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION HAD TAKEN PLACE AND IT WAS NOT PO SSIBLE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND COMPUTER HARD DISCS ETC. WERE SEIZED/IMPOUNDED AT THE TIME O F SEARCH OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SE VERAL REQUESTS WERE MADE TO THE AO TO RELEASE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, B UT TO NO AVAIL. THESE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED B Y THE LD. DR ITA NOS.4314 TO 4332/DEL/2013 4 WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. FROM THE ABOVE RECORDING OF THE FACTUAL POSITION OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, IT IS CRYS TAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AO WHICH LED TO THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 5. HERE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF THE SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IMPOSING PENALTY ARE N OT ABSOLUTE. SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHOWS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DEFAULT WHICH LED TO THE I MPOSITION OF PENALTY, IN SUCH CASES, THE PENALTY CAN BE DELETED. IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS DULY COVERED W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 273B. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE C AUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH LED TO THE COMMISSION OF DEFAULT U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT CONSTITUTED A REAS ONABLE CAUSE. THE DELAY IN FILING THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS ETC. CALLED FOR BY THE AO WOULD BE NATURALLY DELAYED WHEN A PERSON HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND DOCUMENTS ARE WITH THE DEPA RTMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE PROVED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AO WHICH CULMINATED INTO THE IMPOSITION OF THE INSTANT PENALTY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THIS ITA NOS.4314 TO 4332/DEL/2013 5 PENALTY CANNOT BE UPHELD. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ORDER FOR DELETION OF THIS PENALTY. 6. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL OTHER CASES A RE ADMITTEDLY, MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF SHALINI GOYAL, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, SUPRA. FOLLOWING THE VIE W TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE PENAL TY IN OTHER CASES AS WELL. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.06.201 4. SD/- SD/- [ C.M. GARG ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 20 TH JUNE, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.*