SHRIMATI MANJIT KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 690/ASR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 December 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to incorrect addresses, leading to non-delivery. The Assessing Officer continued issuing notices to the wrong address even after initial non-service. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for levying the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed ex-parte. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer despite notices. The assessee contended that notices were not properly served due to incorrect addresses.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when notices were not properly served due to incorrect addresses provided by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI MANISH BORAD

Hearing: 02.12.2021Pronounced: 20.12.2021

ORDER Per Manish Borad, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld.

CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar dated 24.09.2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed penalty u/s 271(1)(b), by saying that no compliance was made by assessee to notice by A.O. served u/s 142(1) by affixture, as no affixture of notice u/s 142(1) was ever done by A.O.

2. That CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) by saying that Postmaster certificate is undated, whereas, returned Dak of notice is already lying in the record of department.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual assessment for AY 2010-11 was from the ex-parteu/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-appearance in the assessment proceedings on the dates called for the Ld. AO. Subsequently penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 17.05.2018.

4.

Assessee carried out this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed.

5.

Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribuanal.

6.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to paper book dated 01.12.2021 containing 28 pages and also submitted that assessee was not served with the notice, Copy of certificate of Postamaster also filed before the lower authorities. It was also stated that assessee has not intentionally avoided to appear before Ld. AO. Prayer made to delete the penalty.

7.

Per contra, the Ld. DR supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and both the lower authorities.

8.

We have heard the rival contention and perused the record placed before us.

Sole issue raised in this appeal is against the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.10,000/- for non appearance before the Assessing Officer. On perusal of records we find that on some instances notice were sent to the wrong address due to which the postal authorities could not deliver the document. A confirmation letter from the Postmaster of returning the speed post has been filed. Notice u/s 148 was served through affixture which was never received by the assessee as the address was not correct. Further Ld. AO kept an issuing notices on the wrong address even when the first notice was not served due to wrong address. All these series of facts shows that there was a mis- communication at the end of the Assessing Officer about the address and also not mentioning the husband’s name of the assessee which resulted in non serving of the notice since she resided in village. Under these given facts and circumstances, we find no justification in the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating and levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20/12/2021.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →