SMT. SUMITRADEVI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 2453 & 2454/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2013-14

Sumitradevi Shah, The DCIT, 221, Manekbaug Society, Circle 5(2), Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Vs Ahmedabad PAN: ACKPS9184M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Written Submission Date of hearing : 13-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 21-06-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

These two assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2013-14, arise from order of the CIT(A), Ahmedabad-5 dated 08-08-2016, in proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A Nos. 2453 & 2454/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Sumitradevi Shah vs. DCIT

“1.0 The CIT(A) erred in upholding order u/s 271(1)(b) because the order passed by the assessing officer is bad in law since and it is contrary to the provisions of law and the facts of your appellant's case. It is submitted that It be so held now. 2.0 The allegations made by the assessing officer in the order framed u/s 271(1)(b) are contrary to the facts and unfounded. The order be quashed. 3.0 The appellant had respectfully complied with all the notice issued u/s 142(1) and In the event of any failure there is a reasonable cause i.e. insufficient period allowed by the assessing officer or ambiguity in the notice or non-availability of the assessing officer in the office. The order framed by the assessing officer be quashed. 3.1 The order framed by the assessing officer is bad in law as no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been provided to the appellant. The order has been framed by the assessing officer without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore the order be quashed.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has issued notice u/s. 142(1) requiring the assessee to furnish requisite information on 29th Sep, 2015. However on the date of hearing neither anybody has attended nor furnished any written communication. Consequently, the assessing officer has issued show cause notice on 30th Sep, 2015 asking the assessee to explain why penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) should not be imposed. However, the assessee has failed to respond to the show cause notice issued by the assessing officer. Consequently, the assessing officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 10000 on the ground that assessee failed to make compliance with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the act without any reasonable cause. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained penalty levied by the assessing officer.

I.T.A Nos. 2453 & 2454/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Sumitradevi Shah vs. DCIT

necessary compliance was made. She further stated that assessing officer vide notice dated 142(1) had directed to provide exhaustive details for which her representative had attended before the assessing officer and requested for adjournment and on the basis of understanding the representative believed that request for adjournment was granted by the assessing officer. She further stated that vide letter dated 6th Nov, 2015 the notice dated 14th Sep, 2015 was duly complied with. She had further stated that all the hearing fixed from time to time thereafter fully complied with. The ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities. After hearing the ld. departmental representative and perusal of the written submission of the assessee and material on record we considered that there was reasonable cause for not attending the hearing fixed by issuing of notice u/s. 142(1) of the act because of old age, ill health and adjournment sought by the representative of the assessee. We have also considered that assessee has thereafter made full compliance to all the hearing taken place in this case before the completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act. Looking to the above facts, we considered that the assesseee has reasonable cause for not making compliance to the notice issued. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee

Order pronounced in the open court on 21-06-2018

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 21/06/2018 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A)

I.T.A Nos. 2453 & 2454/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 Sumitradevi Shah vs. DCIT