CAN & ABLE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIRTUAL HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1468/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1469/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.1470/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Can & Able Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ITO Ward 2(1) बनाम/ Vs. SCO 68-69, Level 2, Sector 8C, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector – 17-E Chandigarh – 160008 Chandigarh – 160017 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAECC-2134-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Ramneek Kaur (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 14-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for captioned Assessment Years (AY) arise out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority. First, I take up ITA No.1468/Chandi/2026 which is penalty appeal for AY 2012-13 wherein the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.2,51,506/-. From case records, it emerges

that Ld. AO levied impugned penalty on the ground that the assessee did not file return of income u/s 139 whereas the assessee disclosed profit of Rs.7,54,331/- in response to notice u/s 148. The Ld. AO also disallowed unpaid service tax for Rs.59,602/-. The assessment stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and impugned penalty was levied for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for the same very reason. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 2. It emerges to me that the assessee has not filed the return of income initially. However, the assessee filed return of income during reassessment proceedings which stood accepted substantially except for small statutory disallowance u/s 43B. In my opinion, the concealment of income has to be in the return of income as filed by the assessee which is not the case here. The statutory disallowance as made by Ld. AO also does not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not sustainable on the given facts. I order so. 3. In ITA No.1469/Chandi/2026 for AY 2012-13, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.28,249/- on the allegation that the assessee failed to get his accounts audited. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. I find that the penalty has been computed at 0.5% of turnover. Considering the penalty of Rs.28,249/-, the assessee’s turnover works out to be less than threshold limit of

Rs.60 Lacs and accordingly, the assessee was not required to get the accounts audited. Hence, the impugned penalty could not be sustained. I order so. 4. In ITA No.1470/Chandi/2026 for AY 2013-14, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.,109,442/-. The penalty has been levied for disallowance of service tax for Rs.3,11,686/- and disallowance u/s 40A(3) for Rs.42,500/-. I find that both the disallowances are statutory disallowances which do not warrant levy of penalty. Therefore, I delete the same. 5. All the appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 15th July,2026

-Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 15-07-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH