Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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 CHAUDHARYSmt. Swati Jignesh Jain
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 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/250/2021-22/1035850578(1) dated 24/09/2021 (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).
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.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual and had filed its return of income for A.Y.2014-15 on 30/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,84,294/-. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and consequently reassessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2017. In the course of re-assessment proceedings though initially the assessee did not secure its presence in person or through her authorised representative before the ld. AO, finally appeared before the ld. AO in person and even furnished a statement u/s.131 of the Act before the ld. AO by filing the requisite details. The assessee also explained before the ld. AO that she got married during the course of re- assessment proceedings and that she was under the confusion as to who was handling her income tax matters i.e. whether it is being handled by her father or by her in-laws. In view of this confusion, there was some absence in the initial period before the ld. AO but later on once the confusion was resolved, she started appearing in person before the ld. AO and furnished all the requisite details that were called for. Ultimately, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the ld. AO, which goes to prove that the earlier absence of the assessee has been duly condoned by him. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions in support of contentions of the assessee which are directly on the point:-
a. Ganesh B Pokhriyal vs ACIT in dated 29/11/2019 b. Globus Infocom Ltd., vs. DCIT in 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.)
3.1. In the aforesaid case laws, it has been held that no penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act could be levied when an assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, wherein the ld. AO is deemed to have condoned the absence of the assessee or his authorised representative on earlier occasions when subsequently, the details were furnished by him and the assessments were ultimately completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Hence, we deem it fit that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. We direct the ld. AO to delete the said penalty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 14/06/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.