The Kharian Education Society, Sirsa V. JCIT, Sirsa

ITA 806/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86135 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 806/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE KHARIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. THE JCIT VPO- KHARIAN SIRSA RANGE SIRSA SIRSA PAN NO.AACAT0233H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. M.R. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 21/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/01/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), ROHTAK. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS I. THAT THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIRSA AS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK IS BAD IN LAW AND IS BEYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. II. THAT THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIRSA AS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND NEEDS TO BE SET-ASIDE . 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IN T HIS CASE RETURN WAS FILED LATE THEREFORE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(E) WERE INITIATED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E IT WAS MAINLY 2 STATED THAT ASSESSES INCOME DID NOT EXCEED TAXABLE LIMIT THEREFORE PENALTY WAS NOT LIVIABLE. AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS SU BMISSION AND LEVIED THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 60,800/- UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(E). 4. ON APPEAL THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT B ELATED RETURN WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY AND THE RETURN INCOME HAS BEE N ACCEPTED ALSO, THEREFORE LENIENT VIEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN TH IS REGARD. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITA NO. 1025/CHD/2012, M/S DAYANAND WELFARE EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY SIRSA VS THE J.C.I.T, SIRSA. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION CAREFULL Y SINCE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN VOLUNTARILY AND NIL INCOM E HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE TA KEN A LENIENT VIEW PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED I N RURAL AREA AND MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED IN CASE OF M/S DAYANAND WELFARE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY SIRSA VS THE J.C.I.T, S IRSA (SUPRA). WHICH IS AS UNDER: AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH IS LOCATED IN A RURAL AREA MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCE D THROUGH 3 SPECIAL ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THIS CASE NEEDS LENIEN T VIEW PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ULTIMATELY FILED THE RETUR N VOLUNTARILY AND THE NIL RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ASSES SMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) A ND DELETE THE PENALTY. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/01/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23/01/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR