Harihara V., Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 564/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8754 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.564/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEAR - 2006-07) SHRI V HARIHARA, ADVOCATE, NO.112, KODIHALLI, H.A.L IIND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008. . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B MALLIKARJUNAIAH, CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G MANOJ KUMAR, ADDL. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II AT BANGALOR E DATED 21.12.2009 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF LEVYING P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. ITA NO.564/B/10 2 2. THE ASSESSEE SHRI V HARIHARA IS A PRACTICING ADV OCATE. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE PRESENT CASE U /S 144 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETA ILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME. THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.1,48,570/- AND T HE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRE D. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED FURTHER AND ISSUED NOTI CE U/S 271(1)(B), PROPOSING TO LEVY PENALTY FOR THE DEFAULT OF NON-CO MPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. WHEN THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT DOING WELL DURING THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. BUT THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y AND HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE AS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 273B. HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED P ENALTY OF RS.10,000/-. 3. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN EXPLAINED BE FORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE WAS NOT DOING WELL AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND HE WAS SUFFERING FROM THE TRAUMA ON THE DEATH OF HIS YOUNG SON IN A TRAIN ACCIDENT. BUT THE CIT(A) HELD THAT HIS SON DIED IN A TRAIN ACCIDENT ON ITA NO.564/B/10 3 27.5.2005, ALMOST THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT INCIDENT COULD NOT BE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NO T RESPONDING TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY MEDICAL CERT IFICATE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL AND MENTAL DISORDER DURING THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. ACCORDINGLY, TH E CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO REASONABLE CAUSE TO EXPLAIN AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND, THEREFORE, THIS S ECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HEARD SHRI B MALLIKARJUNAIAH, THE CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHRI V HARIHARA, THE AS SESSEE ALSO WAS PRESENT BEFORE US. SHRI G MANOJ KUMAR, THE LEARNED ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE . 6. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 14 4 AND THE INCOME DETERMINED THEREIN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE TAX WAS PAID. THIS IS A SMALL INCOME CASE. IT IS NOT A BIG CASE WHERE NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE CAUSED GREAT PREJUDICE TO THE ITA NO.564/B/10 4 INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINE D BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TIME AS HE WAS NOT IN A PROPER FRAME OF MIND AND P HYSICAL CONDITION, FOR WHICH, ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THE UNTIMELY DEAT H OF HIS SON IN A TRAIN ACCIDENT ON 27.5.2005. THE DEATH OF THE ASSE SSEES SON WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) AS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CERTIFICATE TO ESTABLISH THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DI SORDER OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE AGONY AND SHOCK OF BEREAVEMENT REACT ON DIFF ERENT PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT WAYS. LOOSING OF A YOUNG SON AT THE PRIME OF HIS YOUTH IS AN ENDURING PAIN FOR ANY FATHER. FORGET THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, A PERSON MAY NOT BE FREE FROM THE PAIN AND DEPRESSION THROUGH OUT HIS LIFE. TO APPROACH THE MATTER IN A HIGHLY TECHNICAL MANNER AND TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A DISTURBED STATE OF M IND, AS THREE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE DEATH OF HIS SON, IS AT LEAST , NOT PROPER. ITA NO.564/B/10 5 8. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHIC H SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, WE FEEL THAT WE WILL BE PERPETUATING AN ACT OF INJUSTICE IF THE PENALTY IS NOT VACATED. 9. THE PENALTY IS DELETED. 10. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY , THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010, AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (DR. O.K NARAYANAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.