HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 June 2019AY 2013-142 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 dismissing the appeal for manual filing in the first year of mandatory e-filing was too technical and denied justice. It also found that the five-day notice period was insufficient for compliance, thus deleting the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as not maintainable because it was filed manually instead of electronically, which was mandatory for the first time in that assessment year. A penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed manually in the first year of mandatory e-filing should be dismissed as not maintainable, and whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is justified for non-compliance with a short notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Hearing: 27.3.2019Pronounced: 3.6.2019

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 16.8.2017 pertains to A.Y. 2013-14. The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by dismissing the appeal as not maintainable as the same was filed in manual form instead of electronic form.

2.

We have heard learned DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Upon careful consideration we note that this was the first year in which filing of appeal before learned CIT(A) electronically was made mandatory. Hence, in our considered opinion as this is the first year this issue may not be very strictly and technically pursued so as to deny justice by not deciding the appeal manually. Hence, in our considered opinion learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

2 M/s. Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. 3. As regards merits of levy of penalty, penalty has been levied on the ground that the assessee was asked to furnish information vide notice dated 23.12.2015 fixing the appeal for hearing on 29.12.2015 and the non- compliance thereof has lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-

4.

In our considered opinion mere giving five days time to respond is certainly very short to permit levy of penalty us/. 271(1)(b) for non-compliance. In our considered opinion conduct of the assessee in these circumstances cannot held to be contumacious to warrant penalty. Hence, on overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we delete penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed in this case.

5.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 3.6.2019.

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 →