SWEETY RANKESH NAGAR,SURAT V. .ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 873/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves seven appeals by the assessee, Sweety Rankesh Nagar, against the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for non-compliance with a notice issued under section 142(1) for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The penalties were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a precedent set in a similar case involving the assessee's group, where it was determined that imposing separate penalties for each year for a single default was unreasonable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40414 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Dimki Hemang Jhaveri vs. ITA Nos.704 to 710/SRT/2024, Smt. Anita Awasthi vs. ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 238 (Varanasi-Trib.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIR UDAY P. NANAVATI
• Section: 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.868 to 874/SRT/2024 (AYs: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Sweety Rankesh Nagar, 2, Ganesh Krupa Society, Gail Tower, Rander Road, Surat – 395009 Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle – 1, Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BWXPD7841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shir Uday P. Nanavati, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 11/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These seven appeals by the assessee emanate from the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act [in short, ‘the Act’] of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’], for the assessment years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2018- 19. The CIT(A) has confirmed penalty levied by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 271(1)(b) in AYs.2012-13 to 2018-19. In all appeals, the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeals, facts in all appeals are common. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order for the sake of 2 ITA Nos.868 to 874/SRT/2024 Sweety Rankesh Nagar convenience and brevity. For appreciation of fact, appeal for AY.2012-13, in ITA No.868/SRT/2024 is treated as “Lead” case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying penalty of Rs.10,000 for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 07/12/202 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on misleading, baseless, arbitrary and perverse observations, is contrary to law and facts of the case and hence, liable to be deleted. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Rival submission of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset, learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that ground of appeal raised by assessee is covered by the decision of assessee’s group cases in Dimki Hemang Jhaveri, in ITA Nos.704 to 710/SRT/2024, dated 20.11.2024. The AO levied penalty either u/s 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) for all seven years by treating a single default for all seven years and thereby levied penalties @ Rs.10,000/- for all seven years by separate orders. Resultantly, penalty for Rs.70,000/- was levied. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that it was only a single default. The Ld. AR of the assessee also filed copy of the decision of Tribunal in in Dimki Hemang Jhaveri (supra). 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue after going through the contents of the order dated 20.11.2014, in case of Dimki Hemang Jhaveri (supra), submits that he relies on the order of lower authorities. 3 ITA Nos.868 to 874/SRT/2024 Sweety Rankesh Nagar 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. We find that on similar set of facts, on similar grounds of appeal, this combination in assessee’s group case in Dimki Hemang Jhaveri (supra) passed the following order; “4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by Ld. AR of the assessee. We find that there is no dispute that pursuant the search action, the AO was making assessment orders of current assessment year as well as for six years immediately prior to year in which action search was carried out. It is also matter of fact that AO issued a consolidated notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 07.12.2022 for all assessment years. The Assessing Officer has given only five days’ time to make compliance. It is also undisputed fact that neither the assessee nor his representative attended or complied notice dated 07.12.2022 nor sought any adjournment. The AO considered a single default for initiation and levying penalty for default on a single occasion, but levied penalties in all years. Thereby treating it seven defaults on a single day. In our view, only it was a single default and imposing seven-time penalties i.e. in each and every year is unreasonable. Thus, penalty levied for single default is reasonable and for all remaining years is deleted. 5. The Ld. AR of the assessee strongly relied on the decision of Varanasi Tribunal in case of Smt. Anita Awasthi vs. ITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 238 (Varanasi-Trib.) wherein similar penalties under section 271(1)(b) was deleted as re-assessment proceedings were quashed. However, facts in the present cases are at little variance. In the case of hand only addition was deleted and entire assessment proceedings are not quashed. 6. To make this order clear, the penalty for initial assessment year i.e., assessment year 2012-13 is sustained and for remaining assessment years i.e., 2013-14 to 2018-19 penalties levied either under section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) of the Act are deleted. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No.704/SRT/2024 is dismissed and remaining appeals ITA Nos.705-710/SRT/2024 are allowed.” 5. Considering the decisions of this bench in assessee’s group cases on similar penalty, wherein the penalty was sustained only in first year i.e., in AY. 2012-13 and for remaining AYs.2013-14 to 2018-19, penalties levied either u/s 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) of the Act were deleted, following the principles of 4 ITA Nos.868 to 874/SRT/2024 Sweety Rankesh Nagar consistency, we dismiss appeal in ITA No.868/SRT/2024 and allow remaining appeals in ITA Nos.869 to 874/SRT/2024. 6. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in all appeals folder / case file(s). Order pronounced on 11/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 11/12/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) / PCIT 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "