Yashodhan Namdeo Chaudhari, Bhusawal V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 87/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1598 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 27; 132; 139

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . , ' # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SHRI YASHODHAN NAMDEO CHAUDHARI, 11, SWED BINDU, SHANTI NAGAR, YAWAL ROAD, BHUSAWAL 425 201. PAN : ADTPC7058G . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (CENTRAL)-1, NASHIK. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.07.2016 $ / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : THIS BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK, DATED 13.11 .2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) AT RS.10,000/- EACH FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATED TO THE SAME AS SESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING M ADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NO.86/PN/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 2 ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.86/PN/2015 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE ACT OF LEARNED AO LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(B) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE FAILURE TO COMPLIANCES WAS NOT INTENTI ONAL AND NOT MERE EXCUSES. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND SHALL BE PRAYED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.07.2012. FURTHER, A NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 09.05.2013 CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME. ANOTH ER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 19.09.2013 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING F OR CERTAIN INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAME AND FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 13.12.2013. IN RESPONSE TO TH E SAME ALSO NOBODY ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE-SAID NOTICE ISSUED ON 13.12.2013, PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SUBMISSIONS ON 13.01.2014. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EVEN RESPONSE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER VIDE PARA 4 OBSERVES THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND WAS HELD TO LIABLE FOR PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-. 5. SIMILAR PENALTY WAS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE IDE NTICAL DEFAULTS IN ALL THE OTHER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13. 3 ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 6. THE SAID PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPLETE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS FILED ON 24.01.2014 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT ON SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND SIMILAR DEFAULTS NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED IN THE C ASE OF SMT. ASHA BHAGWAT CHAUDHARI WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CONSOLIDATED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 9. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AFTER SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED ON THE CHAUDHARI GROUP OF CASES, THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY SEARCHED. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139 BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESP ONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 09.05.2013, 19.09.2013 AND ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 13.12.2013. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID NOTICE, SHOW-CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION WHERE A PERSON HAS DEFAULTED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND/OR FAILED TO FURNISH THE INFORMA TION/DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FOR, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH A PERSON TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF RS.10,000/- EACH FOR SUCH FAILURE. THE SAID PENALTY IS PAYABLE IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY THE SAID PERSON. IN THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE 4 ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD DEFAULTED AND HAD NOT COMPLI ED WITH THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO DOUBT COMPL ETE INFORMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN LENIENT IN IMPOSING PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF R S.10,000/-, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE SUCH DEFAULT, AS AGAINST THE DEFAULT OF ASSESSE E IN NON-COMPLIANCE OF VARIOUS DATES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 10. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENAL TY OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) EACH FOR THE SAME DEFAULT IN ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD LIABLE T O PAY THE PENALTY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 FOR A DEFAULT WHICH IS RE-R ECURRING IN THE OTHER YEARS I.E. ON SAME DATES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN EACH OF THE YEARS I .E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAME. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE PENALTY OF R S.10,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE BALANCE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13 ARE DELETED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS IN OTHER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-0 8 TO 2012-13 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 08 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 08 TH JULY, 2016. 5 ITA NOS.86 TO 92/PN/2015 $ % &'() *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. $+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE