M/S AROMA FIBRE GLASS PVT LTD,JSR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JSR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 259/RAN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 November 20184 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 revenue failed to establish that the notices of hearing were served on the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance with the notices cannot be sustained.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 271(1)(b) for the assessee's failure to appear on multiple hearing dates. The assessee claimed notices were sent to a wrong address, and the lower authorities did not establish service of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is sustainable when the revenue has not established the proper service of notices on the assessee for the hearing dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Hearing: 22/11Pronounced: 22/11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI

BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.259/Ran/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07

M/s. Aroma Fibre Glass Pvt Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur Ltd., Netaji Road, Infront of Durga Puja Maidan Vidyapati Nagar, Baridih, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.AADCA 3429 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Date of Hearing : 22/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/ 2018

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A), Jamshedpur dated 14.8.2017 for the assessment year

2006-07

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) was

not was not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.50,000/- levied

u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer

observed that the assesse did not appear on the dates of hearing

fixed by issuing notices on 17.10.2007, 18.1.2008, 13.8.2008 and

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No. 259/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07

9.9.2008 and, therefore, he levied penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act

for failure to comply with the notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the

Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each default.

4.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing

Officer on the ground that at Sl.No.12 of the appeal, the assesse

has stated that he is enclosing herewith the Xerox copy of notices

with wrong address issued u/s.271(1)(b) of the I.T.Act and at

Sl.No.13 stated that he is enclosing Xerox copy of return of income

filed electronically and no such documents were filed.

5.

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assesse submitted that

against the order in quantum appeal, the assesse filed appeal

before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 8.3.2016

in ITA No.18/Ran/2016 restored the matter back to the file of the

Assessing Officer on the ground that the Assessing Officer has

passed the order without discussing anything regarding the nature

of addition and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without

discussing upon the merits of the case. Hence, it was his

submission that as the assessment itself was set aside by the

Tribunal back to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the levy

of penalty does not survive u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No. 259/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07

6.

On the other hand, ld D.R. vehemently opposed the

arguments of ld A.R. of the assesse and submitted that since the

assesse failed to put in appearance before the Assessing Officer on

the dates fixed for hearing, he was fully justified in levying the

penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

7.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials

on record, I find that as the assesse failed to put in appearance

before the Assessing Officer in response to notices issued on five

dates of hearing, therefore, he levied penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the

Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each default committed by the assesse. The

assesse submitted before the CIT(A) that notices of hearing were

sent on wrong address and, therefore, the assesse could not comply

with the assesse. None of the lower authorities has brought any

evidence on record before levying the penalty to show that notice

of hearing sent to the assesse was served on the assesse or not.

Since the service of notice on the assesse for the date of hearing

fixed has not been established by revenue, in my considered view,

levy of penalty cannot be sustained in law. I, therefore, set aside

the orders of lower authorities and delete penalty of Rs.50,000/-

levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act and allow the grounds of

appeal of the assesse.

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No. 259/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Order pronounced on 22 /11/2018. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 22/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Aroma Fibre Glass Pvt Ltd., Netaji Road, Infront of Durga Puja Maidan Vidyapati Nagar, Baridih, Jamshedpur

2.

The Respondent. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur 3. The CIT(A)- Jamshedpur 4. Pr.CIT- Jamshedpur 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi By order 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Sr. Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 4 | 4

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 →