Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4204 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-09-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
13-11-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, VS. CIT XV, DIRECTOR, SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI. 39/1386, CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI 110 006. (PAN : AAACS4291E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2017 DATE OF ORDER : 29.09.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, BY FILING THE PR ESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 16.09.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-XV, NEW DE LHI ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- BEFORE THE IT AT NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR DIRECTOR SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS LTD AGAINST TH E PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 272A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT APPEALS -XV FOR PENALTY U/S 272 A IS ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 2 NOT TENABLE UNDER THE LAW BEING PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND LIABLE TO BE DROPPED BEING THE LEARNED OFFICER DID NOT MENTION T HE TIME BY WHICH THE REPLY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT APPEAL-XV IS FOR PENAL TY U/S 272A FOR NOT PROVIDING THE INFORMATION IN THE MATTE R OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND ASS.YEAR 2004-05 WH ICH IS ERRONEOUS IN ITSELF BECAUSE THE LAW DOES NOT MAN DATE TO KEEP RECORDS EITHER IN COMPANIES ACT OR IN INCOME T AX ACT FOR SO MUCH OLD PERIOD SPECIALLY WHEN NO PROCEEDING OF ASSESSMENT IS PENDING AGAINST THE COMPANY. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT APPEAL-XV IS OTHERWISE FACTUALLY WRONG BEING INSPITE OF THE OLD RECORDS FO R SUCH A PERIOD WHEREIN THE COMPANY WAS NOT MANDATED BY LAW TO KEEP RECORD THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBM ITTED TO THE CIT APPEAL-XV. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT APPEAL -XV IS OTHERWIS E FACTUALLY WRONG WHEREIN HE HAD ALLEGED THAT NO REPL Y TO HIS NOTICE DATED 3.9.2014 WAS SUBMITTED WHEREAS DUE REPLY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THEM TOWARDS SUCH NOTICE DATE D 3.9.14 ON DATED 16.9.2014 HENCE THE PENALTY IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) IN CASE OF ONE SHRI GAUTAM THADANI, M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE THE INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2013 BY LD. CIT (A) TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT :- 'MR. GAUTAM THADANI, C-31, MAYFAIR GARDEN, NEW DELH I HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED 10,000 SHARES OF YOUR COMPANY, AS AN ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE ON 04.03.2002. 2. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONFIRM WHETHER SHA RES WERE ALLOTTED TO MR. GAUTAM THADANI BY YOUR COMPANY ON T HE ABOVE MENTIONED DATES. IN CASE SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE CONF IRMED, KINDLY FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO THE UNDERSIGNED: (I) COPY OF SHARE APPLICATION BY MR. GAUTAM THADAN I. ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 3 (II) COPY OF THE TRANSFER DEEDS IN RESPECT OF SHAR ES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD BY MR. GAUTAM THADANI. (III) DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY MR. GAUTAM THADANI FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING FOR SHARES. 3. YOU ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PREVAILING MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES AS ON THE FIRST DATE AND AS ON THE LAST DATE OF MAY 2003, AS MENTIONED IN YOUR ANNUAL ACCOU NTS. 4 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE ABOVE DETAILS B Y 26 DECEMBER 2013. 3. M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS FURNISHED COPY OF SHA RE APPLICATION FORM ALONG WITH PAYMENT DETAIL QUA INVE STMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- MADE BY SHRI GAUTAM THADANI, HOWEVER REMAINING DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THEN REMINDERS DATED 09.01.2014 AND 14.01.2014 WERE ISSUED TO FURNISH CO MPLETE INFORMATION. ON FAILURE OF M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODU CTS, SUMMON U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR TO APPEAR IN PERSON ON 27.02.2014 AT 12.00 AM FAILING WHICH HE WILL BE LIA BLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 272A OF THE ACT. ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DIRECTOR OF SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS TO PUT IN APPEARANCE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) IN COMPLIANCE TO SUMMON ISSUED U /S 131, A PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 272A OF THE ACT. 4. FEELING AGGRIEVED WITH THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 4 5. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. BARE PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) GOES TO PROVE THAT INITIALLY M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS WAS CALLED UPON VIDE LETTER DATED 10.12.2013 TO FURNISH THE REQUISI TE INFORMATION IN CASE OF ONE SHRI GAUTAM THADANI, TO WHICH M/S. SUPR EME AGRO PRODUCTS THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HAD DULY REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09.2014, AVAILABLE AT PAGE 11 ON TH E APPEAL FILE, STATING THEREIN THAT AS PER PROVISIONS CONTAINED UN DER THE COMPANIES ACT, THE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE RECORD FOR SIX YEARS ONLY AND THEREAFTER THE OLD RECORD IS NOT MAI NTAINED AND DUMPED. 8. THEREAFTER, ALL OF SUDDEN, NAME OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DIRECTOR OF M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS APPEARED AND NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO HIM BUT THE PENALTY OR DER ITSELF IS SILENT IF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS EVER SERVED ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 5 UPON SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR. BE AS THAT MAY BE, SHRI P RAVEEN KUMAR, DIRECTOR OF M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS EVEN OTHERWISE CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE FOR PRODUCING THE RECORD OF M /S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY (JURIS TIC PERSON). HAD SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR INDIVIDUALLY BEEN SERVED THE N HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE LIABLE U/S 272A OF THE ACT. EVEN OT HERWISE, WHEN M/S. SUPREME AGRO PRODUCTS VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09. 2014 HAS DULY REPLIED THAT THE REMAINING RECORD IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THEM BEING MORE THAN SIX YEARS OLD WHICH THE COMPANY IS NOT RE QUIRED TO MAINTAIN UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, THE QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 272A OF THE AC T. 9. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN IMPOS ING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S 272A OF THE ACT, HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREB Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 TS ITA NO.6218/DEL./2014 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
Mehul