M/s. Rana Industries, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4864/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 486420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4864/DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) RANA INDUSTRIES VS. ITO 4 TH K. M. STONE, WARD-2(1), MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN:AAIFR7704A ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADV. REVENUE BY :SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 04.06.2 012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOU R GROUNDS OF APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS REGARDING GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST CIT (A)S ACTION OF UPHOLDING A PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1) (B) WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS AS 271 (1) (C). 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY VI DE ORDER DATED 04.06.2012 ON THE BASIS OF THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO MPLIED WITH VARIOUS ITA NO.4864/DEL/2012 2 NOTICES AND HAD SOUGHT FREQUENT ADJOURNMENTS AND TH EREBY HAD CAUSED DELAY IN THE COMPLETION OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS LISTED THE VARIOUS DATES ON WHICH NOTICES AND DATE OF HEARING WERE FIX ED AT PAGE 2 OF PENALTY ORDER. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AS SESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTIC ES U/S 143(2) AND NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND ALL DOCUMENTS WERE FILED WIT H THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT VOUCHERS AS IS APPARENT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDE R DATED 23.12.2011. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT PENALTY WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COMPLETE WIT HOUT VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT UNNECESSA RY ADJOURNMENTS AND, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST IFIED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25.08.2010 AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR 06. 09.2010 ON WHICH DATE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE HOWEVER, ON 01.02.2011 THE COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE WAS MADE. THEN AGAIN NOTICE U/ S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 21.02.2011 AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR 03.03.2011. THE A SSESSEE SOUGHT ITA NO.4864/DEL/2012 3 ADJOURNMENTS ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WERE GRANTED AN D FINALLY APPEARED ON 03.05.2011 AND FILED PART INFORMATION. AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142 (1) WAS ISSUED 29.09.2011 TO WHICH REPLY WAS FILED ON 10.10.2011. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND IN THE BODY OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT ON VARIOUS DATE S THE ASSESSEES ADVOCATE HAD APPEARED AND HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2011 AFTER INITIATION OF FIRST N OTICE U/S 143(2) ON 25.08.2010 THAT IS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ABOUT 16 MONT HS. THOUGH ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ADJOURNMENTS ON VARIOUS DATES HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION EXCEPT VOUCHERS AS REQUIRED U/S 143(2) AND U/S 142(1) WAS DULY FILED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER RELYING UPON SUCH IN FORMATION. SECTION 271 (1) (B) STATES. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 115WD OR UNDER SUB S ECTION 2 OF SECTION 115WE OR UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 42 OR SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECTION ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 142 HE MAY DIRECT SUCH PERSON TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY IN THE CASES REFERR ED ABOVE IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM OF T EN THOUSAND RUPEES FOR EACH SUCH FAILURE. 6. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER WE FIND THAT EXCEPT FOR TAKING ADJOURNMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION EXCEPT VOUCHERS AND FOR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AP PROPRIATE ADDITION. ITA NO.4864/DEL/2012 4 THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AS SESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WE D ELETE THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 8 TH /11/ 2013 SD/- SD/- (A. D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 8 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR,ITAT NEW DELHI.