Saroj Rani Mittal, Patiala V. ITO, Ward 4, Yamunanagar

ITA 506/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Saroj Rani Mittal, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty levied by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar, under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1) during the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant's counsel argued that the notices were issued in 2015, long after the assessee had vacated the address in question due to her husband's government job transfers. The Tribunal examined the circumstances of the notice delivery and found that the notices were not served as the assessee had already moved, leading to the conclusion that there was no willful non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127545 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “एकल” च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC” CHANDIGARH ी संजय गग , या यक सद य BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.506/CHD/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saroj Rani Mittal, House No. 23, Street No.1-A/12, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala. बनाम The ITO, Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar. थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AKZPM1934E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 01.06.2023 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.11.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year. 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for non compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) during the assessment proceedings. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned penalty order to submit that the assessment year in this case was assessment year 2007-08 whereas the notices u/s ITA-506/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 2 of 3 142(1) were issued in the year 2015. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the husband of the assessee has been a Government employee and on his transfer from one place to another place, the assessee has to shift alongwith her husband. That earlier the assessee was residing alongwith her husband at the given address at Yamuna Nagar, however, on his transfer in the year 2008 itself, the said house was vacated by the assessee and her husband and thereafter, the husband of the assessee remained posted at different places and retired from Government service on 31.03.2015. The assessee shifted to the respective places of postings of her husband alongwith him. The ld. counsel has submitted that the alleged notice u/s 142(1) was never served upon or received by the assessee and therefore, there was no question of willful non compliance of the same. 3.1 The ld. counsel in the reply has placed reliance on Paper Book page 1 wherein a certificate has been given by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Rewari to the effect that Shri Dharam Pal Mittal was transferred from Yamuna Nagar to Ambala in the year 2008 and further that on his transfer from Yamuna Nagar, the government house was vacated and Shri Dharam Pal Mittal never re-occupied the said house. 4. A perusal of the penalty order dated 18.09.2015 also reveals that the AO himself has mentioned that none of the notices issued ITA-506/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2007-08 Page 3 of 3 by him were ever served upon the assessee, rather the same were returned back by the Notice Server with the remarks that ‘no one resides at the given address’ or with the remarks of the postal authorities ‘Not known’. The contents of the impugned penalty order itself show that the notices u/s 142(1) were never received by the assessee because of the reason that the assessee was not residing at the given address. Therefore, it was not a case of willful non compliance of the notices issued by the AO. The impugned penalty, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted. 5. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 2 nd June, 2023. Sd/- ( संजय गग ) (SANJAY GARG ) या यक सद य/ Judicial Member आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3.आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4.-वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील&य आ2धकरण, च5डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5.गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar