ASHOK KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5291/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 2009-102 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 found contradictory findings by the CIT(A) regarding notice service. It held that the assessee had a sufficient cause for not attending assessment proceedings, as undelivered notices were found in the record and this was not denied by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee was penalized under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed the notices were not received due to residing in a village, and that undelivered notices were found in the assessment record.

What were the issues?

Whether there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to attend assessment proceedings, and if the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. T. S. Kapoor

Hearing: 28.05.2019Pronounced: 31.05.2019

ORDER This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 31.05.2018 sustaining the penalty of Rs.10,000/- which the Assessing Officer had imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

2.

The assessee appeared himself and stated that he is living in a village where the notices issued by Assessing Officer were not received and therefore, the assessee could not appear. The assessee further stated that he had verified the assessment record on 08.05.2018 and from the assessment records he found that envelopes containing notices u/s 148 of the Act were unserved and were placed in the assessment record itself and therefore, it was prayed that failure on the part of assessee had a sufficient cause as the assessee was not aware of the notices.

3.

The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below.

1.

2 Ashok Kumar 4. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that ld. CIT(A) has noted in his order that notices were found to be duly served as per India Post Tracker but later on returned as un claimed and therefore, he presumed that notices issued by Assessing Officer were refused by the appellant and therefore, he held that there was no reasonable cause for not attending the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. I find that on the one hand, the ld. CIT(A) is mentioning that notices were found to be duly served and in the next line he says that these were returned as un claimed. These are contrary findings of ld. CIT(A) and are based upon assumptions only. The assessee on 08.05.2018, has claimed to have inspected the assessment files and had found the undelivered notices laying therein and ld. DR was not able to deny this. Therefore, I hold that there was sufficient cause for not attending the assessment proceedings and therefore, the penalty sustained by ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the Court on 31 s t day of May, 2019 at New Delhi)

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 →