SRI MRINAL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 57/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 April 20193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee made part compliance and the assessment order was not passed under Section 144, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) should be deleted. The Tribunal relied on a Delhi High Court judgment where subsequent compliance was considered good.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought adjournments during assessment proceedings and made partial compliance by submitting some documents and bank statements. The Assessing Officer imposed penalties for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with notices when the assessee has made partial compliance and the assessment order was not passed ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.AR, Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR
For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 57/Ran/18
ITA No. 58/Ran/18

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (Before Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

ITA No. 57/Ran/18 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 58/Ran/18 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

Sri Mrinal, Bariatu, Ranchi Vs DCIT, Cir-2, Ranchi PAN: AAUPM5800A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant/assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.AR Respondent/department by : Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR

Date of Hearing : 11-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05 -04-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi, both dated 22-12-2017, which in turn arise out of separate penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (DCIT, Cir- 2, Ranchi) u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the ‘Act’), both dated 08-03-2016.

2.

Since these two appeals pertained to the same assesse, different assessment Page1 years, common and identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed

1 ITA Nos. 57 & 58/Ran/2018 A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Sri Mrinal Bariatu

and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

At the outset itself the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings the ld. AR of the assesee filed adjournment on behalf of assessee and sought time of 10 days for filing of required documents. On the date of hearing on 07-03-2016 the assessee submitted bank account and statements and again requested adjournment for a week vide page-2 of the assessment order. Therefore, the assessee had made part compliance during the assessment proceedings and therefore penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assesee did not submit all the documents as required by the AO. He made part compliance during the assessment proceedings. Therefore the penalty should be levied u/s. 271(1)(b).

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee had made part compliance in response to notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. We note that the assessment in this case was carried on by the AO u/s. 148 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. During the assessment stage, the assessee submitted the required documents before the AO from time to time. However, on some occasions where the date of hearing was fixed by the AO, the assessee could not appear before the AO. Therefore, the AO imposed penalties u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.30,000/- each for both the A.Ys (2009-10 & 2010-11) under consideration in respect of non-compliance of the said statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Page2 We further note that the assessee has made part compliance and the assessment order is not passed u/s. 144 of the Act, therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble 2 ITA Nos. 57 & 58/Ran/2018 A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Sri Mrinal Bariatu

Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd (2000) 246 ITR 560(Del), wherein it was held that since the order was passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) and not 144 of the Act. This means the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and default committed earlier were ignored by AO. Therefore, it will be deemed that the assessee had made proper compliance and penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be levied. Therefore, keeping in mind above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the impugned penalties of Rs. 30,000/- each for both the A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11. Grounds raised by the assesse in both the appeals for the A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 are allowed.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05 -04-2019

Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Godara) (Dr. A.L.Saini) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05 -04-2019 *PRADIP (Sr.PS) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant/Assessee: Sri Mrinal, Flat No. 406, Heritage Apartment, Bariatu, Ranchi-834001. 2 The Respondent/Department : DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi. 3. The CIT-, 4. The CIT(A)-, 5. DR, Ranchi Benches, Ranchi True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar /Senior P.S ITAT, Ranchi Benches Page3 3 ITA Nos. 57 & 58/Ran/2018 A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Sri Mrinal Bariatu

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →