SALASAR DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(1) (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1916/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 June 2022AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee ultimately complied and the assessment was completed, the penalty for non-compliance on a single date was not justified. The AO had implicitly condoned the absence by completing the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the AO on a scheduled hearing date but appeared the next day and provided the required documents. The assessment was eventually completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable for a single instance of absence when the assessee subsequently complied and the assessment was completed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Hearing: 09/06/2022Pronounced: 14/06/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2016-17 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi in Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036138655(1) dated 04/10/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

M/s. Salasar Derivatives Pvt.Ltd.,

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. A written submission was filed on behalf of the assessee by the authorised representative which is placed on record. We have perused the said written submissions, heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee did not appear before the ld. AO on 29/05/2018 being the scheduled date of hearing. However, on 30/05/2018, the assessee had duly appeared and submitted the relevant papers physically before the ld. AO. However, the ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance on the scheduled date of hearing and levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- thereon vide order u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act dated 13/05/2019. This penalty was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

3.1.We find that assessee had explained that the authorised representative was in Jalgaon on 29/05/2018 in connection with an audit assignment and accordingly, was not able to attend to the hearing on 29/05/2018. However, we find that assessee through its authorised representative had ensured presence before the ld. AO on 30/05/2018, 15/09/2018, 03/10/2018, 09/10/2018 and 17/10/2018 by furnishing the requisite details called for from time to time. Ultimately, we find that the assessment was completed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Act only. When an assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, it goes to prove that there was sufficient compliance by the assessee by furnishing the requisite details before the ld. AO and that the ld. AO had indeed condoned the absence of the assessee on earlier occasion. Similar

M/s. Salasar Derivatives Pvt.Ltd., view was also taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of various Tribunal as under:- a. Ganesh B Pokhriyal vs ACIT in dated 29/11/2019 b. Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 dated 29/06/2016 c. Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shamshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT reported in 115 TTJ 419(Del) d. Pillala Vishnuvandana vs. ACIT reported in 88 Taxman.com 803 (Visakhapatnam Trib.)

3.2. Hence, we deem it fit that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. We direct the ld. AO to delete the said penalty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 14/06/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

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 →