Vikram Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4897/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7463 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SEKHON
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4897/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI VIKRAM SINGH, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, C 18 19, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 016. (PAN : AAMPS8704R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.S. SEKHON, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. CHANDRAKAR, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-XXXI, NEW DELHI DATED 28.05.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED A PENALTY OF R S.20,000/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AND THE CIT (A) HAS REDUC ED THE PENALTY TO RS.10,000/- AND BALANCE WAS DELETED. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION IN THE GROUP CASE ITA NO.4897/DEL./2013 2 IN ITA NO.4900 & 4899/DEL/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 14. 08.2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, THIS PENALTY MAY ALSO BE DELETED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE ITAT IN ITA NO.4900 & 4899/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHANDRA SWAMI VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 20, NEW DELHI HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR PENALT Y BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- ,10. APROPOS SOLE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SEVERAL NOTICES BY FIX ING THE DATE OF HEARING ONLY AFTER A FEW DAYS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICES WERE R ECEIVED AFTER PASSING OF DATE OF HEARING, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY FOR NON COMPLYING THE NOTICES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.20 ,000/- AND THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PART PENALTY OF RS .10,000/-. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT AS PER PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WI TH QUESTIONNAIRE ON 31.10.2011 FIXING THE CASE FOR 07.11.2011 AND SUBSE QUENTLY ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SAME SECTION OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 17.11.2011 FIXING THE CASE FOR 25.11.2011 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN HURRY FOR THE REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM AND THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE A.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH NOT ON THE DATE OF HEARING BUT A DAY OR TWO LATER S INCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OFFICE IS AT ERA CENTRE AT JHANDEWALAN EXTE NSION AND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD INVARIABLY GET STUCK IN TIME BARRING MATTERS AT LAXMI NAGAR, CRB BUILDING, VIKAS BHAWAN AND MAYUR B HAWAN AND COULD NOT GET TIME TO REACH ERA CENTRE IN TIME. 11. THE PROCEDURE OF ISSUE NOTICES FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING IS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF THE ACT TO C OMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND TO ENABLE THE NOTI CEE TO SUBMIT HIS SUBMISSION AND CONTENTIONS ON THE ISSUE. THE QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES IS ALSO REQUIRED TO ADOPT A JUSTIFY AND REASONABLE APP ROACH WHILE ISSUING SUCH NOTICES BECAUSE SIMPLY ISSUANCE OF NOTICES AND ITS SERVICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTIC E BUT THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE NOTICE SHOULD GET REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND TIME TO ENGAGE COUNSEL OR REPRESENT ATIVE OR TO COLLECT RELEVANT MATERIAL AND TO FURNISH REQUIRED EXPLANATI ON AND REPLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED AS REQUIRED IN THE NOTICE. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY NEITHER THE ASS ESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT REM AINS THAT THE ITA NO.4897/DEL./2013 3 ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE GAVE HIS APPEARANCE AFTER DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE A.O. BUT IT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME. WE A LSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES IN HURRY FIXING A DATE OF SEVEN-EIGHT DAYS ASKING TO SUBMIT REPLY, WHICH IS NOT A PROPER AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUIL TY OF NON COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND, THE REFORE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOTICED HARSH SITUAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT UPHELD PART PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH. HENCE, WE COME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PART PENALTY AS IMPO SED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. SINCE THE ITAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW IN DELETING THE PENALTY IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN GROUP CASE, THEREFORE, WE ALSO INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT TO DELETE THE P ENALTY AS FACTS ARE THE SAME. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 19 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.