Shalini Goyal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4346/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82184 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY MITTAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1-7. ITA NOS.4333 TO 4339/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11) 8-13. ITA NOS.4340 TO 4345/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2009-10) SHRI SALEK CHAND GARG, VS. ACIT, CC-5, DU 175, PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 088. (PAN : AEXPG2248H) 14-19. ITA NOS.4346 TO 4351/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2009-10) 20-24. ITA NOS.4352 TO 4356/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2008-09) MS. SHALINI GOYAL, VS. ACIT, CC-5, 44, ENGINEERS ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI. DELHI 110 034. (PAN : AAEPG8998B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY MITTAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NO.4333/DEL./2013 & 23 OTHERS 2 IN ALL THESE 24 APPEALS, THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVE D IS REGARDING CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE CIT (A) WHICH WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN A GROUP CASE BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHALINI GOYAL VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI IN ITA NO.4314/DEL./2013 & ORS. BY ORDER DATED 20.06.2014. HE HAS ALSO SUBMI TTED A COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT. HE PLEADED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME, HENCE, IN THESE CASES ALSO, PENALTY DESERVES TO BE DELETED. LD. DR WAS ALSO HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. AFTER HEARING BOT H THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS LEV IED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES ARE THE SAME AS WAS IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF SHALINI GOYAL WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT ON 20.06.2014. THE RELEVAN T PARAS OF THE SAID ITAT ORDER READ AS UNDER :- 3. ON A REPRESENTATIVE BASIS, WE ARE TAKING UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHALINI GOYAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 IN ITA NO.4314/DEL/2013. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS APPEAL ARE 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 1 6.09.2011, 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 REPLY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL THE STAF F MEMBERS AND THE CONCERNED PERSONS WERE OCCUPIED IN FINALIZATION OF BOOKS OF ITA NO.4333/DEL./2013 & 23 OTHERS 3 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 ASSES SEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE I N FILING THE RETURN/DOCUMENTS WAS UNINTENTIONAL. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER 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 RS.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 SEV ERAL REQUESTS WERE MADE TO THE AO TO RELEASE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, B UT TO NO AVAIL. THESE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR 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 PROVISI ONS 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 CAU SE 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 R EASONABLE 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 PENALTY CANNOT BE UPHELD. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ORDER FOR DELETION OF THIS PENALTY. ITA NO.4333/DEL./2013 & 23 OTHERS 4 6. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL OTHER CASES A RE ADMITTEDLY, MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF SH ALINI GOYAL, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, SUPRA. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE PENAL TY IN OTHER CASES AS WELL. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAIN THE SAME I N THESE CASES, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFO RESAID DECISION OF ITAT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW ALL THESE 24 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 24 APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.