PRAVEEN DAGA, GUWAHATI V. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 83/JPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0437 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 144; 273B; 142(1)

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 fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 83/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Praveen Daga, House No. 7, Opp. Overnite Express Ltd., Bye Lane No. 3, Rupali Path, Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 (Assam) cuke Vs. I.T.O. Ward 6(2), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEAPD 8832 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Sharwan Kr. Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/01/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 07/01/2022 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/07/2021 of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2019 as well as the notice u/s 271(1)(b) is bad in law, illegal and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) ITA 83/JP/2021 Praveen Daga Vs ITO 2 imposed by the ld. AO. Hence the penalty so imposed by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being absolutely, contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and not in conformity with the law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an individual and shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati (Assam). The assessee has filed his return of income with the ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati on 13/01/2012. A copy of the return of income is placed at page No. 1 of the paper book and thus the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee filed return of income which was not considered by the A.O. while issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act which is issued on the presumption that the assessee has not filed any return of income. The ld. AR has further submitted that since the assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati and filed his return of income with the ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati, therefore, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur. The ld. AR has thus submitted that the assessee has not received the alleged notices issued by the A.O. as he was not in the Jaipur and already shifted to Guwahati and hence the assessment was completed U/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Since the notices were not served upon the assessee, therefore, the penalty levied by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is not ITA 83/JP/2021 Praveen Daga Vs ITO 3 sustainable and justified. He has thus, pleaded that the assessee has explained a reasonable and bonafide explanation for non-compliance of the alleged notices issued by the A.O. to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not filed his return of income with the jurisdictional ITO but unilaterally chose to file the return with the ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati who has no jurisdiction to assess the income of the assessee. Thus, wrong filing of return of income cannot be a ground for non-compliance of notices issued by the A.O. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it is clear case of non-compliance of notice issued by the A.O. and therefore, the penalty levied by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is justified. 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The A.O. issued notice U/s 148 of the Act on 30/03/2018 at P No. 330, Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur i.e. the address of the assessee. Thereafter the A.O. issued notice U/s 142(1) of the Act to the Guwahati address as well as Jaipur address of the assessee. Thus, it is clear that subsequently, the A.O. came to know that the assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati. It is also not disputed that the assessee filed his return of income on 13/01/2012 with ITO, ITA 83/JP/2021 Praveen Daga Vs ITO 4 Ward 3(3), Guwahati, though the said return was not filed with the A.O. having jurisdiction of the assessee but since the assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati and also filed the return of income, therefore, it amounts to a bonafide and reasonable explanation for non-compliance of the notices issued by the A.O. U/s 142(1) of the Act for which the A.O. has levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has shifted from Jaipur to Guwahati and this fact is also substantiated by filing the return of income with ITO, Ward 3(3), Guwahati, then the assessee has proved that there was a reasonable cause for the failure and non-compliance of the notice U/s 142(1) of the Act as provided in Section 273B of the Act. Hence, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. 5. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 th January, 2022. Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07 th January, 2022. *Ranjan vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Praveen Daga, Guwahati, (Assam). ITA 83/JP/2021 Praveen Daga Vs ITO 5 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O. Ward 6(2), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@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. 83/JP/2021) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar