JAI GOPAL SONDHI, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 49(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 6305/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4224 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BARNWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AAYUSHI AJMANI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A, NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6305/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI BE-274, 3 RD FLOOR, GALI NO.5, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN BEVPS 4352H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.6306/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) SHRI ASHOK NAYYAR 81-A, VIKRANT ENCLAVE MAYAPURI-1, NEW DELHI. PAN AEPPN 4185C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.6307/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) SH. JAGJEET SINGH SAHI B-41, 2 ND FLOOR, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN BKBPS 5482A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.6308/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) 2 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO SH. MOHIT MANOCHA PROP. M/S. KUNAL AGENCY B-42/4, DOUBLE STOREY, RAMESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN ARPPM 777A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY MS. AAYUSHI AJMANI, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 28.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.10.2020 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THESE FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES AND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} WHEREIN HE HAS UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES U/ S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE A CT). SINCE THESE APPEALS INVOLVED IDENTICAL ISSUES, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(B) HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE BY 3 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO THE ASSESSEES WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED UNDER THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHOK NAYYAR, THE PENALTY L EVIED IS OF RS.20,000/-, IN THE CASE OF SH. JAGJEET SINGH SAHI , THE PENALTY LEVIED IS OF RS. 70,000/-, IN THE CASE OF JAI GOPAL SONDHI, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS OF RS.90,000/- AND IN THE CASE OF SH. MOHIT MONOCHA, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS OF RS.80,000/-. 3.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) APPEARI NG ON BEHALF OF ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEES AND SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE FOUR CASES ALTHOUGH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INI TIATED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 144 OF THE ACT MEANING THEREBY THAT THE SUB SEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDE RED AS A GOOD COMPLIANCE AND THE DEFAULT COMMITTED EARLIER W AS CONDONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGN ED PENALTIES U/S 271(1)(B) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENC H IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT REPORTED IN [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (DEL.) WHEREIN A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF 4 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO THIS TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT WHERE AN ASSES SEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BU T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AN D NOT U/S 144, IT MEANT THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND DE FAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) OF THE AC T WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT THE P ENALTIES IMPOSED SHOULD BE DELETED. 4.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND SUBMIT TED THAT NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSES SEES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND, TH EREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS LEGALLY CORRECT AND THAT A HYPER TECHNICAL VIEW SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AND FURTHER THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT MEAN THAT THE DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSEES WERE IGNORED. 5 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE NOT E THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY IN ALL THE FOUR CASES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, ALL THE SAME H E HAS PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APP EALS HAS OBSERVED ON IDENTICAL LINES IN ALL THE FOUR IMPUGNE D ORDERS THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STATUT ORY NOTICES CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR NON LEVY OF PENALTY ON ACCOUN T OF EARLIER DEFAULTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED IN ALL T HE FOUR IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES THAT NO PENA LTY IS LEVIABLE SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED U/S 143 (3) WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED FOR SPECIFIC DEFAULTS ON SPECIFIC DATES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT WE ARE BOUND BY THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BUT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER 6 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 144 OF THE ACT, THAT MEANT THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULTS COMMITTE D EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, LEVY O F PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FACTS IN THESE FOU R APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT (SUPRA) AND FURTHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY ORDER IN FA VOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. A DIT (SUPRA) , WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN ALL THE FOUR APP EALS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28/10/2020. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/10/2020 PK/PS 7 ITA NO.6305 TO 6308 /DEL/2017 SH. JAI GOPAL SONDHI & ORS. VS. ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI