Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
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.
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/-.
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.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing
Officer.
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.
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.
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.
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