Smt. Kashmiraben Shailesh Patel, Valsad V. The Dy.CIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

ITA 66/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2363 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SUTARIA
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 66/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SMT. KASHMIRABEN SHAILESH PATEL BHAGWATI MANINAGAR, TITHAL ROAD VALSAD-396001 V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAZPP9940K APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH UPADHYAY, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SUTARIA, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 29-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 -03-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 02.11.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13. ITA NO. 66/A HD/2016 . A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE L EVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/- U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 02.04.2014 WAS SERVED ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE DID N OT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED. 4. THE A.O WAS CONVINCED THAT BY NON COMPLIANCE, THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT. 5. SINCE TWO NOTICES WERE NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE A.O LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/-, BEING 10,000/- FOR EACH DE FAULT. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHI CH MEANS THAT THE A.O HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH MEANS THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE BY THE A.O; WHICH MEANS THAT EARLIER DEFAULTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO C ASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. BY SUBSEQUENT CO MPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 66/A HD/2016 . A.Y. 2012-13 3 THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O T O DELETE THE PENALTY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 03 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD