M/S. UTTARANCHAL STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4498/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 November 2017AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed in a hurried manner and the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard. The objections raised by the assessee were not properly disposed of.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file statements under Section 200(3) or Section 206(C) of the Income Tax Act. A show cause notice was issued, but the assessee did not appear, leading to a penalty under Section 272A(2)(k). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) was imposed correctly without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the objections raised by the assessee were properly addressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(k),Section 200(3),Section 206(C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” BENCH NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06/11/2017Pronounced: 07/11/2017

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Appellant, M/s. Uttaranchal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.8.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, affirming the penalty order dated 30.5.2016 passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that:-

“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,42,400/- u/s 272A(2)(k) that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,42,400/- u/s 272A(2)(k) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned order passed by Ld. AO u/s 272A(2)(k) which is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

4. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : due to failure of the assessee, in filing statement u/s 200(3) or proviso to section 3 of the section 206(c) before the Assessing Officer a show cause notice u/s 272A(2)(k) was issued. But the assessee has failed to put in appearance and consequently penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) has been imposed by the Assessing Officer as under:-

RRR Number Form Periodicity Due Date * Date of Filing Delay(Days) Amount of Num Penalty 50550200376222 24Q Q1 1 5-Jul-11 05-May-l 2 295 29500 5055020037623 24Q Q2 15-Oct-11 05-May-12 203 20300 50550200376244 24Q Q3 15-Jan-12 05-May-12 111 11100 50550200406786 26Q Ql 15-Jul-11 28-Jun-12 349 34900 50550200406775 26Q Q2 15-Oct-11 28-Jun-12 257 25700 50550200406764 26Q Q3 15-Jan-12 28-Jun-1 2 165 16500 50550200406753 26Q Q4 15-May-12 28-Jun-12 44 4400 TOTAL 142400

3. The assessee carried the matter before the Learned CIT(Appeals) by way of filing the appeal who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

4.

We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Bare perusal of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer apparently goes to prove that the penalty order has been passed in a hurried manner because it is difficult to make out from the same as to when the notice was issued to the assessee. Uttaranchal State Co- operative Bank Ltd. a State public sector bank, and as to whether the said notice was served upon the assessee or not. Though the assessee has raised objection before the Learned CIT(Appeals) by bringing on record that due to shortage of staff, misplacement and loss of data, transfer of employees, lack of expert knowledge due to formation of new State of Uttarakhand, compliance could not be made, but it appears that adequate opportunities of being heard has not been given to the assessee before imposing the penalty as the impugned order is silent in disposing off all these objections raised by the assessee. 6. So we are of the considered view that for complete adjudication of controversy at hand the file is required to remit back to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the case afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

All 249 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →