SANJAY VASANTRAO WANI,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1607/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 August 2019AY 2012-133 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 the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had sought an adjournment and no notice under section 142(1) was issued for the adjourned date. Therefore, there was no default in attendance.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer on a scheduled date despite receiving a notice under section 142(1). The assessee had requested for more time due to a change in their authorized representative. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for non-attendance.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-attendance when the assessee had sought an adjournment and no notice was issued for the adjourned date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 01.08.2019Pronounced: 22.08.2019

आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik, dated 05.04.2017 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. On the basis of facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-I, Nashik, is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act.

ITA No.1607/PUN/2017 2 Sanjay V. Wani

3.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act at ₹ 10,000/-.

4.

Briefly, in the facts of the case, case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 10.09.2014 along with questionnaire. The assessee vide letter dated 20.09.2014 requested for more time. The hearing of case was adjourned to 08.10.2014. The assessee did not put in appearance on 08.10.2014. Hence, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 09.10.2014. The assessee again did not file any submissions in response to the said notice and the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, dated 09.10.2014. In response to final opportunity, the assessee filed its submissions and pointed out that because of change in Authorized Representative, information could not be filed in time. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2015. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for default of non-attendance on 08.10.2014. The levy of penalty was upheld by the CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal.

5.

It may be pointed out that levy of penalty has been levied for non- attendance on 08.10.2014 i.e. the date on which the matter was adjourned after issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act for appearance on 25.09.2014. After perusing the written submissions filed by assessee and arguments of the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, we find no merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act as the said penalty is leviable for default in non-attendance to the notice under section 142(1) of

ITA No.1607/PUN/2017 3 Sanjay V. Wani

the Act. The assessee did not default in the same as he did move an application for adjournment and had sought more time. The case was adjourned to 08.10.2014, on which date no notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Hence, we find no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of August, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 22nd August, 2019. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Nashik; 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Nashik; ववबागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “फी” / DR 5. ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे/ ITAT, Pune

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 →