HARSHWARDHAN SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 800/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1889 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURYA HARSHADV
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 800/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 HARSHWARDHAN SINGH, B-59, SUDARSHAN BHAWAN, WARD 62, SIKAR HOUSE, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BJYPS 0162H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURYA HARSH(ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/11/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES F ROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 14/06/2016 FOR THE A .Y. 2009-10. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINING THE PENA LTY OF RS. 60,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOURS, TRAVELS, TICKETING, TAXI HIRE SERVICES AND ALLIED BUSINESSES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF ASTHA TOURS AND TRAVELS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA 800/JP/2016_ HARSHWARDHAN SINGH VS. ITO 2 NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 60,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.1.2 (IV) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T, PENALTY ORDER AND EXAMINED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORD A ND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SIX NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2)/ 14 2(1) OF THE ACT WERE SENT BY SPEED POST AND NONE OF THESE NOTICES W ERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. THESE NOTICES WERE ISSUED AT THE ADD RESS OF B-59, SUDARSHAN BHAWAN, WARD-62, SIKAR HOUSE, JHOTWARA RO AD, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. IT IS FURTHER NOTED FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON 23.8.2011 THE APPELLANT ITSELF ATTEND ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 25 .08.2011 AND ON THE SAID DATE AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THE AO ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 04.11.2011 FIXING THE DATE FOR 15.11.2011 AND ON THE SAID DATE, THE APPELLANT AGAI N ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTI ON HERE THAT SUMMON U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT AT THE A BOVE ADDRESS OF B-59, SIKAR HOUSE, JHOTWARA ROAD, JAIPUR AND ON 15.11.2011, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON OATH WHE REIN THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS STATED AS B-59, SIKAR HOUSE, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING RECOR DED ON OATH U/S 131 OF THE ACT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ITS ADDRESS IN T HE SAID STATEMENT. FURTHER, ON THE ONE HAND, THE APPELLANT WAS STATING THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SIX NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT WHEREAS ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS STATED TH AT WHATEVER RECEIVED BY IT WAS HANDED OVER TO ITS CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT. ITA 800/JP/2016_ HARSHWARDHAN SINGH VS. ITO 3 (V) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, NOTICE U/S 250 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON 2 6.10.2015, 04.01.2016, 20.01.2016, 0902.2016, 18.03.2016 AND 0 5.04.2016, BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THES E NOTICES ALSO. THIS SHOWS THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW OF THE LAND. (VI) THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 6 0,000/- U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFI RMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, TH E LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE A SSESSEE HAS COMMENCED THE BUSINESS OF TOURS AND TRAVELS AND ALL IED SERVICES. HE IS ONLY 23 YEARS OLD. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET IMMEDIATE S UCCESS IN THE BUSINESS AND SUFFERED HEAVY LOSSES. THE ASSESSEE EARLIER RESI DING IN A RENTED HOUSE WITH PARENTS, WHO SHIFTED TO A NEW ADDRESS AT PRATAP NAGAR, JAIPUR. THEREFORE, THE NOTICES AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED PROPERLY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DA TED 25/3/2015. THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) IS A DETERRENT IN NAT URE AND NOT FOR EARNING REVENUE. THE VARIOUS FACTS PLEADED SPECIFICALLY REGA RDING THE YOUNG AGE OF ITA 800/JP/2016_ HARSHWARDHAN SINGH VS. ITO 4 THE TAX PAYER, SUFFERING HEAVY LOSSES IN THE INITIA L YEAR OF BUSINESS, CHANGING THE RESIDENCE ALONGWITH HIS PARENTS AND ALS O DUE TO VARIOUS PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS NOTI CES/SUMMONS ISSUED TO HIM. THEREFORE, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE LEVY OF PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. SUCH VIEW IS ALSO GOT SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIO N OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF BALRAM KUMAR MAHE NDRA VS ITO (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 222 (DELHI) AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHA RANI VS DCIT (2015) 60 TAXMANN.COM 131 (DELHI-TRIB). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/11/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI HARSHWARDHAN SINGH, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 800/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR