Vikram Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 650/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 65020114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHUMANA SEN
• Assessee Lawyers: SEKHON
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 650, 651 & 652/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 650, 651 & 652/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2003-04 VIKRAM SINGH, C-18-19, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI 110 016 (PAN : AAMPS 8704 R) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI 110 005 (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. M.S. SEKHON, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. SHUMANA SEN, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE THREE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-I, NEW DELHI IN WHICH PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- IN EACH CASE HAS BEE N CONFIRMED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. IN THESE CASES ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE THREE NO TICES ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHE R NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC ES ISSUED FOR THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- IN EACH CASE FOR THE THREE NON-COMPLIANCE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 650, 651 & 652/DEL/2011 2 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEALS LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE PENALTY O F ` 10,000/- IN EACH CASE, HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE OF THREE NOTICES ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE CLAIMED THAT ON SOME OCCA SIONS, HE HIMSELF HAD GONE TO THE OFFICE OF THE CONCERNED ASS ESSING AUTHORITY WHERE THE CONCERNED ASSESSING AUTHORITYS OFFICE W AS FOUND LOCKED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE NOTICES WERE GENERAL NOTICES WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS TO BE COMPLI ED WITH. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES CONDUCT WAS NOT CONTUMACIOUS TO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY. WE FIND THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- FOR EACH OF THE THREE OCCASIONS IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THAT THE PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- EACH FOR ALL THE THREE OCCASIONS BE DELETE D. 7. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION RENDERED BY A LARGER BENCH COMPRISING OF T HREE OF THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMP OSED UNLESS THE ITA NO. 650, 651 & 652/DEL/2011 3 PARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CO NSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCR ETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION O F ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBE D, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRI BED BY THE STATUTE. 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS A ND PRECEDENT, WE DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN ALL THE THREE CASES. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM [SHAMIM YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 12/10/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES