Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Sitapur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

ITA 84/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 8423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K DEY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.84/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 DY.C.I.T., SITAPUR. VS SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, 456, VIJAY LAXMI NAGAR, SITAPUR. PAN:ABKPK7413N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. DEY, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 09/02/2015 DATE OF HEARING 10 /03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 14/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE SINCE NO NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 13.11.2013 HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED ORDER WITHOUT HE ARING THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND PLACED ON RECORDS OF THE CIT(A). 4. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS TIME BARRED AS PER FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S C ASE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONORABLE ITAT ON 11.12.2008 WHILE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 31.03.2010, SO THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED OFFICER IS TIME BARRED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL ) HAD ERRED IN NOT TAKING THE COGN IZANCE OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND APPRECIATING THEM PROPERLY. 2 6. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IS ERRONEOUS AS FAR AS THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE CONCERNED. 7. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ARE BAD IN LAW AN D CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD A REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF CIT, BAREILLY BEING LETTER FROM INCOME TAX OFFICER (HQ)(JUDL.) DATED 23/12/2014 IN WHICH IT IS STATED BY HIM THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN I.T.A. NO.688/LKW/08 DATED 11/12/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN HIS OFFICE ON 19/01/2009. HE SUBMITTED THAT A DMITTEDLY WHEN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT ON 19.01.2009 , AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 275(1 ) (A) , THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT AND THEREFORE, SUCH DATE EXPIRED ON 31 ST JULY, 2009 BUT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31/03/2010 AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS TIME BARRED. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A.R. O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS TIME BARRED AND THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE SAME. 4. 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. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 /03/2015 *C.L.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