V.B.Senthil Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 692/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4700 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS. 688 TO 694/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2007-08 V.B.SENTHIL KUMAR, 2182, PLOT NO.3, 12 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 041. PAN ALKPS 8257 N VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(3), CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGAR AJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER BENCH THIS IS A BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS. ALL THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2007-08. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, AT CHEN NAI ON 19.1.2011. THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF LEVY OF PENAL TY UNDER SEC.271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA 688 TO 694/11 :- 2 -: 2. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE PREM ISES OF ONE SMT. V.B. VAIDEHI, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BUT THE OF FICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME. ACCORDINGLY , PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPE ALS. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE, THESE SECOND A PPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WHEN THE MATTERS WERE CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOB ODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOT ICE. SHRI K.B.E.RENGARAJAN, THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPE ARED FOR THE REVENUE AND CONTESTED THE CASE. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REF LECTED IN THESE CASES, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO COMPELLING GR OUND TO IMPOSE A PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- EACH, FOR THE SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A NON- RESIDENT INDIAN (NRI), SHOWS THAT HE HAD GENUINE DI FFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED. HIS PRE-OCCUPATION OUTSID E INDIA ITA 688 TO 694/11 :- 3 -: DEFINITELY DILUTES THE GRAVITY OF THE CHARGE LEVELL ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENA LTIES OF ` 10,000/- EACH, IMPOSED FOR ALL THESE SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DELETED. 6. IN RESULT, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH JULY, 2011 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR