SAMAR GOYAL, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5683/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 568319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESHMAL LODHA
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 5683/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 1996-97 SHRI SAMAR GOYAL, 6/163, UDIT MITTAL INDL. ESTATE, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, SAKINAKA, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400 059 PAN-AACPG 3982L VS. THE ITO 20(3)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJESHMAL LODHA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING :27 .09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT. 3.9.2007 DISPUTING THE PENA LTY OF RS. 10,000/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERV E THAT AO LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT OF RS. 10,000/- STATING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WH ICH WERE DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5683/M/2010 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT VA RIOUS NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED, THE DETAI LS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AT PAGE-1 OF PENALTY ORDER DT. 20.3.2007. IT IS RELEVAN T TO STATE THAT NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142 WERE ISSUED BY AO ON 22 ND OCTOBER, 2003, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DT. 9 TH JANUARY, 2004, FRESH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DT. 9.2.20 04 AND AGAIN NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DT. 26.2.2004 WERE ISSUED. IT IS OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY SAID NOTICES, ACCORDINGLY PENALTY PROCEEDING S WERE INITIATED. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER, AO STA TED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142(1) DT. 26. 2.2004. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NOTICES ISSUE D, NO SPECIFIC DATE WAS MENTIONED WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH. THE REFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AO WAS VAGUE AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY LEVIED IS N OT JUSTIFIED. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISP UTE THE SAID CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD.AR THAT NO TICES ISSUED BY AO WAS VAGUE, THEREFORE WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS . 10,000/- U/S/ 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ( B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 RJ ITA NO. 5683/M/2010 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR H BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI