Jatinder Singh Kohli, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5413/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4154 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMANJANEYULU
• Assessee Lawyers: A MATHUR
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - I , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NOS. 5411 TO 5413/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR S : 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 SH. JATINDER SINGH KOHLI, S - 39, 1 ST FLOOR, RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI - 110027 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 45(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BAAPK4175P ASSESSEE BY : SH. A. MATHUR, CA REVENUE BY : SH. RAMA NJANEYULU , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.11 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 12 .201 6 ORDER THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 17.08.2016 OF LD. CIT(A)15, NEW DELHI 2. THE COMMON IS SUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER , SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENT AND BREVITY. 3 . THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE SUS TENANCE OF PENALT Y OF RS.10,00 0/ - IN EACH YEAR LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NOS. 5411 TO 5413 /DEL /201 6 JATINDER SINGH KOHLI 2 4 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION REGARDING CERTAIN HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO B Y THE ASSESSEE , ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMATION S, T HE AO ISSUED A LETTER ON 22.07.2013 AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED AND IF THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED, THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE SAME. B UT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER DATED 15.07.2015 , IN RESPONSE TO THE S AID LETTER, T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY ALONGWITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR S . THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUE D NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 07.08.2015 , WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE AO ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE AND FIXED THE HEARING ON 01.09.2015 . A S THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE THE AO LEVIED THE P ENALTY OF RS.10,000/ - U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 5 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD REPLIED TO THE FIRST LETTER ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 22.07.2013 ON 02.08.2013 BY ENCLOSING A COPY OF RETURN FILED AND EVEN THE LETTER DATED 15.07.2015 WAS REPLIED ON 24.07.2015. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. ITA NOS. 5411 TO 5413 /DEL /201 6 JATINDER SINGH KOHLI 3 6 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ONLY REFERRED TO NON - FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME TAX BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE S ISSUED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE INFORMATIONS WHICH WERE REQUIRED BY THE AO WERE ALREADY FILED UNDER PAN AHYPK8830B WHICH WAS STATED TO BE USED SINCE THE BEGINNING AND HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANOTHER PAN AAG PJ1274R AS STATED IN THE NOTICE DATED 15.07.2015. THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ATTACHED WITH THE APPEAL. THE S AID FACTS WERE NOT CONTRO VERTED. T HEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE S ISSUED BY THE AO , AS SUCH PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND ITA NOS. 5411 TO 5413 /DEL /201 6 JATINDER SINGH KOHLI 4 CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . (ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE CO URT ON 06 /12 /2016) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 06 /12 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR