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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

P a g e 4 | 4