Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot V. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot

ITSSA 151/RJT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4064 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI TANNA
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील (SS) सं./I.T.( SS) A. No. 151/Rjt/2017 ( Assess ment Ye ar : 2012-13) Sh ri R aje sh k u mar Go vi nd bh ai P at el 4 t h F lo or , Sit a Ap ar t me nt , Kas hi V is hv an at h P lot , Raj ko t ब म/ V s . Th e As si sta nt Co mmi s si on er of In co me- tax Ce ntr al C ir cle -1 , R ajk ot यी ल सं./ ीआ आर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A BP P B 7 5 5 9 M (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपील र स /Appellant by : Sh ri Ra vi T an na , A .R. य क र स / Respondent by : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT. DR स क र D a t e o f H e a r i n g 02/06/2022 !"# क र /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 06/06/2022 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-I/679R/CC-1/Raj/2014-15 dated 07.09.2017 arising in the penalty order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the IT(SS)A No. 151/Rjt/2017 (Rajeshkumar G. Patel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 272A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee read as under: “1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad has erred in law in dismissing appeal ex-parte by alleging that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal, though the appellant filed written submission on 29.08.2017 in the office of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad. The penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(c) of the Act is totally unjustified on facts as also in law, may kindly be deleted. 3.0 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as also on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied u/s. 272A(1) of the Act. The penalty levied u/s. 272A(1) of the Act is totally unjustified on facts as also in law may kindly be deleted.” 3. At the time of hearing ld. A.R. Shri Ravi Tanna stated that matter is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench in the matter of Shri Rajnikant Mohanlal Bhalodia vs. ACIT & Anr. in ITA Nos. 51 & 52/Rjt/2017order dated 26.07.2017 wherein it is held as under: “We have heard these appeals together. The same are therefore disposed vide instant common order. 2. Both the learned representatives strongly reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) invoked Section 272A(1) of the Act in penalizing these two assessees alleging their failure in submitting details of bank accounts specifically asked vide Section 142(1) notices issued in the course of assessment. Learned Departmental Representative’s case is that the Assessing Officer issued scrutiny notices. Both these two assessees did not furnish the required information about their foreign bank accounts. The same is stated to be a sufficient reason for imposing the impugned penalties on account of assessee’s non cooperation triggering the above penal provision. We however notice that the Assessing Officer in both cases had framed Section 143(3) assessments on 17.02.2015. A co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in Ghanshyambhai Popatbhai Patel vs. JCIT ITA Nos. 1729 & 1730/Ahd/2013 holds that the impugned non cooperation penalty u/s.272A of the Act cannot be imposed in case an assessment is framed under 143(3) of the Act than u/s.144. The Revenue fails to dispute the same during the course of hearing. We therefore follow the said co- IT(SS)A No. 151/Rjt/2017 (Rajeshkumar G. Patel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - ordinate bench’s decision for deleting the impugned penalties in these two cases. 4. Since on similar facts and circumstances, Co-ordinate Bench allowed the appeal in ITA Nos. 51 & 52/Rjt/2017. Thus in parity with the aforesaid order, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- ( WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 06/06/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश े / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- $. र / Revenue 2. आ दक / Assessee '. सं(ं)* आयकर आय + / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय + - अपील / CIT (A) .. / 0 1ीय 2 2 )*3 आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 1 78 9 ल / Guard file. By order/आद श स 3 D e p u t y / A s s t t . R e g i s t r a r I T A T , R a j k o t This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/06/2022