SMT SAROJ KUMAR,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(4), BOKARO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 350/RAN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 November 2018AY 2008-094 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) cannot be sustained as the revenue failed to establish that the notices of hearing were actually served on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the assessee for failing to appear on two dates of hearing, despite notices being issued. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when service of notice on the assessee is not established.

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: 26/11Pronounced: 26/11

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

BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.350/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09

Smt. Saroj Kumar, 25, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Bokaro Lohanchal, Sector-12, Bokaro Steel City. PAN/GIR No.ADQPK 3924 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

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

Date of Hearing : 26/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/ 2018

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

the CIT(A), Hazaribag, dated 18.3.2016 for the assessment year

2008-09.

2.

In Ground No.A & B of the appeal, the grievance of the

assessee is that the CIT(A) was not was not justified in confirming

the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act of

Rs.20,000/-.

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 24.9.2009 and 8.4.2010 and, therefore,

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No. 349/R an/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09 :

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.

5.

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

no notice was actually served on the assesse and, therefore, the

Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing the penalty and the

CIT(A) is also not justified in confirming the same.

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

24.9.2009 and 84.2010, therefore, he levied penalty u/s.271(1)(b)

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

The submission of ld A.R. is that no notice was served upon the

assesse by the Assessing Officer. None of the lower authorities has

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No. 349/R an/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09 :

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.20,000/- levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act

and allow the grounds of appeal of the assesse.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Order pronounced on 26/11/2018.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 26/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Smt. Saroj Kumar, 25, Lohanchal, Sector-12, , Bokaro Steel City. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward 3(4), Bokaro 3. The CIT(A)- Hazaribag 4. Pr.CIT- Hazaribag 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr. Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No. 349/R an/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09 :

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 →