M/S NAMAN FABTEX PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Shri Rajendra Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that in scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was duly represented by its authorised Chartered Accountant. The assessee cooperated fully with the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. It was only on one occasion that the Authorised Representative (in short ‘AR’) of the assessee could not appear due to lack of communication of notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Accountant of assessee, Shri Durgasankar Suthar without informing about notice left for his native place in Rajasthan. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the assessment order would show that whatever documents required by the Assessing Officer were duly furnished. No addition/disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer and income returned was accepted. The ld. AR prayed for deleting the penalty.

On the other hand, Shri Ajai Pratap Singh representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative (in short ‘DR’) submitted that the assessee/AR of the assessee defied notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. No plausible reason whatsoever was given by the assessee for non-appearance/defying notice before the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. Before the CIT(A), assessee has explained the reason for non-appearance of AR of the assessee on one of the dates. During scrutiny assessment proceedings it was explained that the Accountant of the assessee who is a resident of Janapur, Rajasthan without informing about receipt of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act left for his native place to be with his family. Hence, the AR could not attend the proceedings on one of the dates. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that whatever documents were called for by the Assessing Officer were furnished and no addition/disallowance was made in the returned income. I am satisfied that the assessee has been able to explain the reason for non-appearance of the AR of the assessee on one of the dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order is set-aside and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.