SHRI SHYAM ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3062/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 June 2021AY 2012-133 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 was not justified because the show-cause notice for penalty had an incorrect assessment year and the final assessment was framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, indicating cooperation. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices issued under section 142(1) and a show-cause notice during reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance when the final assessment is a regular assessment and not a best judgment assessment, and if the show-cause notice for penalty is flawed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa– Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment year (AY) 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai {in short CIT(A)} dated 19/03/2019 which has confirmed penalty of Rs.10,000/- as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(b).

2.

Though none appeared for assessee, however, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. Hence, we proceed with adjudication of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

3.

Facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee’s case was reopened for the year under consideration as per due process of law and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31/03/2017. During the course of assessment proceedings, certain details were called from assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/2017. However, the same remained un- responded to by the assessee. Accordingly, show-cause notice for non- compliance was issued to the assessee which also remained un- responded to by the assessee. Consequently, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliances.

4.

Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, pleaded that the assessment was finally been framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 and therefore, penalty was not justified. However, not convinced, the penalty was upheld by Ld. CIT(A) against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be gathered that show- cause notice as issued by Ld. AO while levying penalty did not mention the correct AY. Secondly, it is undisputed fact that the assessment has ultimately been framed as regular assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and it is not a case of best judgment assessment. This would show that the assessee has cooperated during assessment proceedings. Therefore, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we delete the impugned penalty.

6.

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 21st June, 2021.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 21/06/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

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 →