Shri Mohit Bansal, JODHPUR V. DCIT, JODHPUR

ITA 441/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7962 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K CHOWBE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Procedural lapse
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 441 & 442/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI MOHIT BANSAL VS. THE DY.C.I.T 131, CENTRAL SCHOOL SCHEME CIRCLE 2 AIR FORCE ROAD JODHPUR JODHPUR PAN NO. AGCPB 9730 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.K. CHOWBE DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.12.2012 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT DATED 7.9.201 0 ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), JODHPUR. THE A.O. HAS LE VIED TWO PROCEDURAL PENALTIES OF RS. 10,000/- EACH U/S 271(1 )(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ON 2 ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ABOVE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT(A) AS WELL. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE ITAT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT AT LENGTH AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RE CORD. HOWEVER, NO ONE CAME PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT DESPITE HAVING BEEN DULY SERVED. THE REFORE, WE PROCEEDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NO TICED THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) OF THE AT WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS STAYING AWAY FROM HIS HOME, AT THE RELEVANT TIME, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS SERVICE, ALTHOUGH, THE NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BY HI S FATHER. THE DATES GIVEN IN THESE NOTICES ARE ALSO VERY SHORT AND THAT MAY BE THE REASON OF NON-COMPLIANCE THEREOF BY AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS LIVING AWAY FROM HOM E. WE FIND THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH EXONE RATES 3 THE APPELLANT FROM THE RIGOURS OF THESE PROCEDURAL LAPSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER TO DELETE BOTH THE PENALTIES AND ALLOW THESE APPEALS. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14.12.2012. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012 VL/- COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT BY ORDER THE CIT(A) THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR