Raj Kumar Singh, Hardoi V. Income Tax Officer, Hardoi

ITA 7/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4635 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.07/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARDOI. VS SHRI RAJ KUMAR SINGH, PATEL NAGAR, MADHOGANJ, HARDOI. PAN:CLJPS1158R (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI MUNNA LAL AGARWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 02/03/2016 DATE OF HEARING 17/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 14/10/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED B OTH IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.78,70 6/- U/S 271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THAT THE MERITS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E DID NOT WARRANT THE PENALTY U/S 271B. 3. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED AND RETAINED IS AGAINST THE MERITS CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT I N FORM NO. 3CB WHICH IS DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED WITH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME DATE AS PER THE RECEIPT ON THE SAME PAGE ON THE TOP 2 RIGHT HAND CORNER AND THEREFORE, ONLY BECAUSE THE R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED LATE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10/10/2011 DUE TO SERIOUSNE SS OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REGARDING FILING OF A UDIT REPORT IN TIME BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT FILED IN HIS OFFICE BUT AS PER THE PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE AUDIT REPORT IN QUESTION FOR THE PRESENT YEAR WAS FILED WITH THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 AS PER RECEIPT AVAILABLE ON THIS PA GE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY U/S 271B IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CAS E AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THEREF ORE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:17/03/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR