Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51694 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-12-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
12-12-2011
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
03-10-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 959/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HARYANA TOURISM V ITO (TDS), CORPORATION LTD., PANCHKULA. YADAVINDRA GARDEN, PINJORE. TAN: RTKH-01298D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARISH NA YYAR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE AO IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE HASTE AND HAVE IGNORED BASIC ASPECTS AND FACTS THUS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-, IMPOSED BY THE ITO (TDS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER IS, THEREFORE 2 ILLEGAL AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE, CONCEDE, MODIFY AND ALTER ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED WITH OUT CONSIDERING THE COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE APP ELLANT. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ANNEXED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ERRORS IN THE PA N WERE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, SUCH ERRORS WERE RECTIFIED IN THE REVISED RETURNS FILED WITHIN TIME ALLOWED BY THE AO I.E. ON 16.09.2010. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO, WIT HOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASS ESSEE, FILED ON THE DUE DATE OF HEARING, LEVIED THE IMPUGN ED PENALTY. 3. LD. 'DR' CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF MIS- QUOTING OF PAN, BUT NOW CORRECTING THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHE R ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE EVEN THE CORRECT S TATUS REPORT. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE ERROR OCCURRED DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH IS HUMAN ERROR AND THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE MADE EFFORTS IN THE MATTER AND THE REVISED RETURN 3 WAS FILED. IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALTY, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND NECESSARY COMPLIANCE WAS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUG NED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DEC.,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH DEC.,2011. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH
Mehul