Patronage Welfare and Educational Society, Uttar Pradesh V. DDIT (E), New Delhi

ITA 6335/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 633520114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6335/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PATRONAGE WELFARE & EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, VS. DDIT( E), PLOT NO. 38, KNOWLEDGE PARK-3, INV. CIRCLE II , GREATER NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH. NEW DELHI. AAATP6969R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR . DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U /S 144 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) ON 08/12/200 8 AND MADE THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. AS REGARD TO THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON 20/06/2009, THE AO HAS HELD THAT HE HAS ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE NO R HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MADE THE COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME AND LASTLY HE BEING SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A DEFAULT FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND IS LIABLE FOR PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPL Y WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) ITA NO. 6335/D/2012 PATRONAGE WELFARE & EDUCATION AL SOCIETY 2 AND 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A DEFAULT FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND IS LIABLE FOR PANEL PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HE ISS UED NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 ON 08/12/2008 FIXING THE CASE FOR 10/01/2009. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT APPEAR . A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 06/05/2009 WITH REQUES T TO ATTEND THE OFFICE ON 15/05/2009 AND EXPLAIN WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING PEN ALTY COULD NOT BE MADE U/S 271 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME N ONE HAS ATTENDED THE OFFICE AGAIN ON 02/06/2009 ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE AO ON 12/06/20 09 AND TO EXPLAIN WHY AN ORDER MAY NOT BE PASSED FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY U /S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES. ON 12/06/20 09 ALSO NONE HAS ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF AO AND FINALLY HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B)1)(B) FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BY PASSING THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2009 U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 6/10/2012 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THE PE NALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AG AINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/10/2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A ). 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN SUB MISSION IN WHICH HE HAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICES MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. FOR S UBSTANTIATE THIS VERSION ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN ORDER U/S 7 OF THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION ACT, 2005 DATED 09/04/2012. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E ALSO CITED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION IN THE ITA NO. 6335/D/2012 PATRONAGE WELFARE & EDUCATION AL SOCIETY 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND FINALLY HE REQUESTED THAT TH E PENALTY IN DISPUTE MAY BE CANCELLED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T MADE THE COMPLIANCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS DATED 25/02/2013 AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE WRITTEN MANY TIMES REGARDING ISSUA NCE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AS W ELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAVE ALSO MENTIONED ABO UT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT I NFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION ACT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATT ACHED AT PAGE 7 & 8 WITH ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION ESTABLISHING THAT THE N OTICE U/S 142 DATED 08/10/2007 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRES S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. WHETHER THIS NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT? THE AO IS SILENT ON THE SAME AND HAS ONLY INFORMED THAT THE N OTICE WAS SENT BY POST. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO AS WELL AS LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT MENTIONED THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND VARIOUS O THER NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTERED POST. EVEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAVE ALSO NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY DISPATC H NUMBER AND DATE FOR SENDING THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY SENDING ISSUE THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR APPEA RANCE DOES NOT MEANS THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON ITA NO. 6335/D/2012 PATRONAGE WELFARE & EDUCATION AL SOCIETY 4 THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AND THE IMPUG NED ORDER. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY L EVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRM BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ILLEGAL. WE CANCELLED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY ACCEPTING TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/10/2014 SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16/10/2014 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 6335/D/2012 PATRONAGE WELFARE & EDUCATION AL SOCIETY 5