Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 603/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals by the assessee, Yakin Jayantilal Shah, against penalties imposed for non-compliance with statutory notices under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The penalties were confirmed by the CIT(A) following an assessment that the assessee failed to respond to notices regarding unexplained deposits in a bank account linked to a cooperative credit society. The tribunal found that the notices were not received by the assessee due to them being sent to the email of a now-deceased consultant, and thus, the penalties were unjustly imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131579 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 147; 142(1)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Yakin Jayan tilal Shah , C/5, 4 t h Floor Austhvinayak Complex , Opp . Dariyapur Darwaja Bard olpura, Ah medabad -3 80001 PAN: BB KPS5678 E (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ah med abad (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Prakash D. Sha h, A. R. Revenue by : Shri N. J. Vy as, Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 16-10 -2 023 Date of pronouncement : 18-10 -2 023 आदेश /ORDER These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the order dated 31-05-2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- ITA Nos. 602, 603, 604 & 605/Ahd/2023 Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 I.T.A Nos. 602 to 605/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 Page No. Yakin Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO 2 ITA 602/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act without considering the facts of the appellant’s case and therefore the learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said penalty. 2. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” ITA 603/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act without considering the facts of the appellant’s case and therefore the learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said penalty. 2. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” ITA 604/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act without considering the facts of the appellant’s case and therefore the learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said penalty. 2. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” ITA 605/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 “1. That the learned CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section I.T.A Nos. 602 to 605/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 Page No. Yakin Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO 3 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act without considering the facts of the appellant’s case and therefore the learned A.O. should be directed to delete the said penalty. 2. That your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee filed return for the assessment year 2013-14 on 16-06- 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,900/-. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of assessee M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. During the course of investigation, it was found that huge money was deposited in the bank account maintained in the society and the society could not explain such huge deposit in its bank account. Failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the material facts for the assessment, the income of the assessee as per the observation of the Assessing Officer had escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 40,69,200/- for assessment year 2013-14 within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to the notice u/s. 148 dated 30-03-202 there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15-11-2021 was issued along with the questionnaire. Subsequently, several notices were issued but the same remained unanswered, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 40,69,000/-. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act thereby imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for the default committed by the assessee by not complying with the statutory notices u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the I.T.A Nos. 602 to 605/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 Page No. Yakin Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO 4 appeal of the assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that as the assessee’s earlier consultant was expired and the same notices were sent to the email id of the earlier consultant, the assessee could not file these statutory replies before the Assessing Officer. None-response on the part of the assessee was not deliberate and therefore the CIT(A) should have deleted the penalty. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that there is delay of five days in filing the appeal. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 6. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The delay of five days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Since the assessee has not received the statutory notices as the same notices were sent to the email id of the assessee’s earlier consultant who expired prior to issuance of the notices and the assessee being not so well conversant with the legal aspect of the change of the email id, the notices were not received by the assessee. The reason given by the assessee appears to be genuine and therefore the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) should not have been imposed in the present scenario. Thus, the appeal of the assessee being ITA 602/Ahd/2023 is allowed. 7. As relates to ITA 603/Ahd/2023, 604/Ahd/2023 and 605/Ahd/2023, the same are identical and hence are allowed. I.T.A Nos. 602 to 605/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 Page No. Yakin Jayantilal Shah vs. ITO 5 8. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-10-2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/10/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद