Sutanuti Marketing P.Ltd, Delhi V. DCIT, Central Circle, , Ghaziabad

ITA 6313/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0379 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.6313/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. SUTANUTI MARKETING P. LTD., A-52, TOP FLOOR, STREET NO. 1, GURUNANAKPURA, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD PAN :AANCS3330F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER DATED 14/08/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KANPUR [IN SHORT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ] IN RESPECT OF PENALTY OF 10,000 LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOM E- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE AC T. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 08.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.07.2021 2 ITA NO.6313/DEL/2017 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 10 /11/2016, WHICH COULD NOT BE COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE ALSO COULD NOT COMPLY NOTICE FOR LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALT Y. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF 10,000 IN HIS ORDER DATED 15/12/2016 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE PENALTY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE IS BEFORE US. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE H EARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE GROUP CAS ES OF 14 ENTITY FOR SEVEN YEARS ABOUT 98 CASES WERE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY APPEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN ONE OR OTHER CASES AND, THEREFORE, NO AT TENDANCE WAS RECORDED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IT IS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS HAVE BE EN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT REPORTED IN [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (DEL.) HAS HELD THAT THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 144, IT MEANT THAT SUBSEQUEN T COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD CO MPLIANCE AND DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING 3 ITA NO.6313/DEL/2017 OFFICER AND THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) ( B) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE FINDING, SINCE FI NAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ALLO WED 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI