Jai Kuwar, Sonipat V. ITO WARD - 2, Sonipat

ITA 7314/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jai Kuwar against the order of the CIT(A), Rohtak, which confirmed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the AO for non-appearance. The Tribunal noted that despite some notices remaining un-responded, the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings by attending and submitting replies. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of the penalty was unjustified and directed its removal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116135 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7314/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jai Kuwar VPO Jatheri, Sonipat Haryana-131001 PAN No.AODPJ4268E Vs ITO Ward- 2 Sonipat (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23/03/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23/03/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Rohtak dated 17.06.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 2 4. The penalty has been levied for non appearance before the AO. Further, a perusal of the assessment order show that Sh. Jai Kunwar attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and submitted his reply. This is mentioned at para 2 of page 1 of the assessment order. It appears that some of the notices remained un-responded which prompted the AO to frame the assessment exparte. But since the assessee had appeared during the course of the assessment proceedings we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(b) of the Act. The AO is directed to delete the same. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 5. Decision announced in the open court on 23.03.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .03.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi