Pradhan Singh, Rohtak V. ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak

ITA 432/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pradhan Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Rohtak. The penalty was levied due to the non-appearance of the assessee in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice was not served at his correct address, leading to his non-appearance and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal, after reviewing the circumstances and the addresses used for serving the notices, concluded that the notices were not properly served, thus setting aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115657 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 432/Del/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 Pradhan Singh H. No. 111, Sector-3, Rohtak PAN : ABAPT4618C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Rohtak (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. A. K. Jain, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Akhilesh Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 20.04.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.12.2021 of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037708218(1) arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 30.11.2018 passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- ITA No. 432/Del/2022 Pradhan Singh, Rohtak 2 “1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of National faceless appeal Centre (NFAC) is against facts and is bad in law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer of imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, it comes up that there was a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has given an explanation that the order of ld. First Appellate Authority was received by him through mail however as he was not having computer and e-mail facility he did not access to it while Ld. AR has not informed him in any other way. The reasons cited are sufficient and justify condonation of the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act has been levied by the Ld. AO on the basis of non-appearance of the assessee in compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 19.09.2018 and as the assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act. The assessee is an individual and claims that he was not served the notice at his present address which is house no. 1111, Sector-3, Rohtak and that the address of his official residence at C-784 KRIBHCO TOWNSHIP, Kribconagar, Choryashi, Surat, Gujarat, where he was sought to be served, was no longer his address. 5. The material on record filed by the assessee shows that in the reasons for reopening address of Rohtak was mentioned while in the notice issued u/s 148 and the assessment order dated 30.11.2018 and the penalty order dated 22.05.2019, address of Surat is mentioned. The Bench is convinced that the notice were not duly served upon the assessee at his present address at Rohtak and further he had no information, otherwise, to appear on 28.09.2018 for default of which notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued. The ground raised ITA No. 432/Del/2022 Pradhan Singh, Rohtak 3 are sustained. The appeal of assessee is allowed and the impugned penalty order is set aside. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 20.04.2023 *Binita, SR.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI