SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH PROP SATGURU WOOD WORKS, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 ( 5 ), AMRITSAR

ITA 92/ASR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5916 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 92 /ASR/2021 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sukhbir Singh, Prop Satguru Wood Works, H. No. 149, Adda Raja Sansi, Gali Achhar Singh Wali, Amritsar PAN: AWTPS4845C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Amritsar, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P. N. Arora, Adv Revenue by: Smt Ratinder Kaur, DR Date of Hearing 13/12/2021 Date of pronouncement 22/12/2021 O R D E R PER Dr. M. L. MEENA, AM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.09.2021 for A.Y 2012-13, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) dated 02.03.2020. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us: “1. That the Penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(b) as well as the order of the Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi thereby confirming the same are both against the facts of this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable opportunity of being heard was allowed before levying the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1 )(b) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the penalty order as well as the order of the worthy CIT(A) are bad in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be cancelled. 3. That the imposition of penalty is unjustified and uncalled for and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby confirming the same is also bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled. 4. That the authorities below did not appreciate that this case does not fall within the mischief of section 271(l)(b). As such the order of the Ld. CIT(A) thereby confirming the penalty is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled.” Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the levy of penalty by the A.O u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Shorn of un-necessary details, assessment was framed by the A.O vide his Page | 2 order passed u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 14.12.2019 for A.Y 2012-13. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings is stated to have failed to comply with the notice(s) which were issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates i.e on 15.05.2019, 23.08.2019, 10.09.2019 and 23.09.2019. Observing, that the asseessee on the last occasion had failed to comply with the notice issued to him u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 23.09.2019, the A.O, after calling upon him to show cause as to why he may not be subjected to penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therein, vide his order dated 02.03.2020 imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him. 2. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). Observing, that the assessee had failed to comply with the notices which were issued to him u/s 142(1) of the Act, the ld CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the order passed by the A.O upheld the penalty imposed by him u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT(A) the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us. It was submitted by the ld Authorised Representative (for short ‘ld A.R’) for the assessee, that as the asssessee had duly furnished his reply in compliance to the notice(s) that were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the ld A.O had wrongly imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. To buttress his aforesaid claim the ld A.R took us through the relevant observations of the ld A.O, wherein, he had in the assessment order categorically referred to the claim of the assessee of having uploaded his reply a/w supporting documents on 21.10.2019 on the e-filing portal of the department. Backed by his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld A.R that the penalty imposed by the ld A.O could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 4. Per contra, the ld Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the ld Authorized representative for both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee on 21.10.2019 had uploaded his reply to the queries which were raised by the ld A.O a/w supporting documents on the e-portal of the department. Although the assessee had taken substantial time to furnish his reply to the queries that were raised by the ld A.O, but the same in our considered view would not suffice for concluding that there was no compliance to the notices that were issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) of the Act. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. We, thus, backed by our aforesaid observations quash the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the ld A.O u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Page | 3 6. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/12/2021. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 22/12/2021 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER