Biswanath Dutta, Bankura V. Addl. CIT, Range, Bankura, Bankura

ITA 508/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7918 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANIK LD
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SEN LD
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings; Competent authority

Judgement Text

, A , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- A CALCUTTA () BEFORE , SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /AND !' 1$%, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & / ITA NO. 508/KOL/2012 '%! ()/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 BISWANATH DUTTA PAN: ADIPD 6874C ADDL. C.I.T RANGE BANKURA ($+ / APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS - . (-.$+/ RESPONDENT ) $+ / 0 / FOR THE APPELLANT: / SHRI D.K. SEN, ADVOCATE, LD.AR -.$+ / 0 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI A.K PRAMANIK, LD. SR. DR 1% 2 / 3 /DATE OF HEARING : 06-08--2012 4( / 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09-08-2012 5 / ORDER !' 1$%, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DURGAPUR IN A PPEAL NO. 22/CIT(A)/DGP/2010-11 DATED 19-01-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI D.K. SEN, ADVOCATE, LEARNED AR REPRESENTE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI A.K. PRAMANICK, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE. . 3. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- U/S. 271E PASSED BY THE LD. ADDL.C.I.T, RANGE-BANKU RA, IS ABSOLUTELY IS BAD IN LAW AND IN FACT. 2. FOR THAT LD. C.I.T (A) IN CONSIDERATION OF THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFI RMING THE SAID PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271E OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. 3. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO A DD TO, TO ALTER TO AMEND THE GROUND/S TAKEN AND/OR TO ADDUCE PAPER/S A T THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.508/KOL/12-A-GM 2 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE APP EAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN CON FIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271E R.W.S 269T OF THE I.T ACT61. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD INITIATED THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271E OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDL.CIT RANGE 2, DURGAPUR HAD ON THE BASIS OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE I.T.O WARD-4, BANKURA LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271E VIDE ORDER DATED 18-6-2010. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT, CHANDIGARH OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMRIT LAL VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2006) 283 ITR (AT) 203 (CHD)(SB), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROCEDURE FOR REFERENCE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OR 271E THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED WAS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND AS NO NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BEING THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (JCIT) / ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ADDL.CIT), THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE ADDL.CIT A ND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED SR. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)/ADDL.CIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE L EARNED ADDL.CIT HAD GIVEN THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE AND CONS EQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INITIATION AND SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE HAVI NG BEEN ISSUED BY THE ADDL.CIT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30-12-2009 SHOWS THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIAT ED BY THE ITO, WARD 4, BANKURA. A PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.CIT, RANGE-BANKURA SHOWS THAT HE HAS RECOGNISED THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED ADDL.CIT HAD NOT ISSUED A NY FURTHER SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE OR DONE ANYTHING TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH [ITAT, CHANDIGARH] OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMRITLAL (SUPRA) SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE VALIDITY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO IMPO SE PENALTY ON THE RELEVANT DATE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT, CHANDIGARH I N THE CASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMRIT LAL (SUPRA) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROCEDURE FOR REFERENCE BY THE ASSESSIN G ITA NO.508/KOL/12-A-GM 3 OFFICER TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OR 271E. . IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PENALTY PRO CEEDING HAS BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BY THE ADDL.CIT/JT.CIT, WHO WAS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, IN VIEW OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT, CHANDIGAR H IN THE CASE OF DEWAN CHAND AMRITLAL (SUPRA), THE PENALTY AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. 6 5 1 7 1% 8 69 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 09-08 -2012 *PP/SPS 5 / -'': ;:(< / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . $+ / THE APPELLANT : BIWANATH DUTTA, VILL & PO: PANCHMURA,DIST:BANKURA.PIN 722156. 2 -.$+ / THE RESPONDENT- ADDL.C.I.T RANGE BANKURA, BILAS H BHAWAN, CHANDMARIDANGA, DIST & PO BANKURA PIN 722101. 3 4. . '5% / THE CIT, '5% ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . ='8 -'% / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . .: -'/ TRUE COPY, 5%1/ BY ORDER, 6 /ASSTT REGISTRAR SD/- SD/- ( , ) ( SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( !' 1$% , ) (GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( (( (3 3 3 3) )) ) DATE 09/08/2012