Shri Dhirajlal Savjibhai Sorathiya, Village- Bhunava, Tal-Gondal, Dist. Rajkot V. The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(2) (1), , Rajkot

ITA 69/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2259 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NAMITA KHURANA
• Section: 143(3); 195; 143(2); 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 69 /RJT/201 9 / ASSE SSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 SHRI DHIRAJLAL SAVJIBHAI SORATHIYA VILLAGE: BHUNAVA, TALUKA: GONDAL, DIST: RAJKOT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 ( 1 )( 2 ), RAJKOT PAN NO. BOT PS4 195 E / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVE NUE BY : MRS. NAMITA KHURANA , SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 / 02 /20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 02 / 20 20 PER BENCH : THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 4 . 0 2 .201 9 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , RAJKOT WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 40,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED A S TO THE ACT ) PASSED BY THE LD. AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 20 09 - 1 0 . HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 . IT APPEARS ON FEW OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HO WEVER, IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WHICH MEANS SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS CONSIDERED WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE GOOD COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULT COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED ITA NO . 69 /RJT/201 9 AY 2009 - 1 0 - 2 - BY THE LD. AO. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THERE CANNOT HAVE BEEN ANY REASON TO DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL. MORE SO, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR ANY COMPLIANC E. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE, THEREFORE, THE RE CAN NOT BE ANY DEFAULT SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(B) WITH RESPECT TO SUCH A NOTICE. SIMILARLY THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14 2(1) R.W.S. 129 OF THE ACT INTIMATING THE CHANGE OF THE JURISDICTION DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE. IT IS JUST FOR THE INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE CHANGE OF HIS JURISDICTION. SO IN ORDER TO THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)( B ) FOR THE NON - COMPLIANCE OF SUCH NOTICE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN LEVYING THE PENALTY UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)( B ) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS HEREBY QUASHED. 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY , 2020 AT RAJKOT . SD/ - SD/ - ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( MADHUMITA ROY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT ; DATED, 28 / 02 /20 20 TANMAY DATTA , SR.PS TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, RAJKOT