Reeta Patel, Bareilly V. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bareilly

ITA 598/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1148 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.598/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.598/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 SMT. REETA PATEL, W/O SHRI RAM PAL KANNOJIA, A-62, EKTA NAGAR, BAREILLY. PAN:AMRPP 7470 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 01/08/2016. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT HON' BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN I.T.A. NO.597/LKW/2016 HAS S ET ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR PANDEY, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 / 01 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.598/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 2 4. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PENALTY WAS I MPOSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) ON VARIOUS DA TES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) O N VARIOUS DATES WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOTED IN THEIR ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE IMPOSED PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FINALLY THE ASSESSEE DI D APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THEREAFTER, THE MATTER TRAVELLED UPTO TRIBUNAL, WHI CH VIDE ORDER DATED 30/01/2017 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO UPHOLD THE O RDER OF CIT(A). WE REVERSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/01/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:11/01/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. R EGISTRAR