Ms Kamla Madan, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4671/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 467120114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SRIVASTAVA

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.4671 TO 4677/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.4691 TO 4697/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.4671 TO 4677/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2008-09, 20 07-08, 2006-07 & 2005-06 KAMLA MADAN, A-8/6, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN : AHAPM1790N VS. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE 21, NEW DELHI. ITA NOS.4691 TO 4697 /DEL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12 LAKSHMI CHAND MADAN, A-8/6, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAIPM8306M VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K. SRIVASTAVA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI S.N. BHATIA, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 20 11- 12 IN THE CASES OF TWO ASSESSES CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CI T (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271 (1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR BEING ITA NOS.4671 TO 4677/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.4691 TO 4697/DEL/2013 2 PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING F ULLY COOPERATED IN THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. AS PER THE PENALTY ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OF THE IT ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED ON 19.11.2012, FIXING THE CASE FOR 26.11.2012. ON 26.11.2012, NEITHER ANYB ODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS, NOR THE REQUISITE INFORMATION/DETAILS WER E FILED. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06.12.2012. IN RESPONSE, VIDE REPLY DATED 26.12.2012, THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED THAT HIS ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT FEELING WELL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAID REPLY, IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- U/S 271 (1)( B) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED SUCH PENALTY. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142 (1) HAD BEEN ISSUED AFFORDING A VERY SHORT PERI OD OF TIME, FIXING THE DATE FOR 26.11.2012. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PENALT Y WAS WRONGLY IMPOSED SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMMIT ANY DEFAULT IN APPEARA NCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 6. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATE RIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT FIRSTLY, EVEN AS PER THE PENALTY ORDERS, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICES U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 19.1 1.2012, FOR 26.11.2012, GIVING A VERY SHORT TIME OF ONLY SIX DAYS. MOREOVER, AS TO WHEN THESE NOTICES WERE SERVED, RATHER AS TO WHETHER SUCH NOTICES WERE SERV ED AT ALL, DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE PENALTY ORDERS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE. 7. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SHOWS THAT T HERE IS NO MENTION THEREIN, OF ANY NON-COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND THESE ITA NOS.4671 TO 4677/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.4691 TO 4697/DEL/2013 3 CASES TO BE FIT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(B ) OF THE ACT. SUCH PENALTIES ARE, THEREFORE, DELETED IN ALL THE CASES, TH E FACTS, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, BEING EXACTLY SIMILAR IN ALL OF THEM. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.01.20 14. SD/- SD/- [ G.D. AGRAWAL ] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 31 ST JANUARY, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.