RAKESH JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3573/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 October 2017AY 2005-064 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding the reasons for non-compliance were not adequately discussed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee's premises, leading to notices under Section 142(1) read with Section 153A. The assessee failed to comply with multiple notices issued by the AO, including a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(b). The AO imposed a penalty for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with AO's notices was justified, and if the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to explain the reasons for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 142(1),Section 153A,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (7 matters)

I.T.A. No. 3573/Del/2016
I.T.A. No. 3574/Del/2016
I.T.A. No.3575/Del/2016
I.T.A. No. 3576/Del/2016
I.T.A. No. 3577/Del/2016
I.T.A. No. 3578/Del/2016
I.T.A. No. 3579/Del/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. SAINI, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order dated 10.2.2016 of CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals relates to the sustenance of penalty levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 9.9.2010 at the office and residential premises of the assessee. The AO issued notices under Section 142(1) read with Section 153A of the Act dated 2.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 fixing the compliance on 20.11.2012 and 10.12.2012 respectively but no compliance was made on the said dates. The AO issued the penalty notice dated 15.04.2013 under Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act and asked the assessee to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed for non compliance. The said notice also remained uncomplied. The AO again gave an opportunity of hearing through notice dated 23.08.2013 fixing the date 4.9.2013. The assessee submitted that on the said date his representative Shri. P.K. Agarwal could not reach office as his car broke down on way to the AO’s office. However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and imposed the penalties under Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for each of the years under consideration. 3. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and submitted that in compliance to notice under Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act, the assessee submitted before the AO that due to break down of car of his authorised representative compliance could not be made. The learned CIT(A)

1.

observed that the assessee had not given any reason before the AO as to why the penalty should be dropped. He, therefore, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the AO.

4.

Now, the assessee is in appeal.

5.

The learned CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not comply the notices issued by the AO therefore penalty was rightly levied for non compliance of the notice issued by the AO.

6.

We have considered the submissions of the learned CIT DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the submissions of the assessee on the merit for non levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(b) of the Act has not been discussed. It is also not clear as to whether the assessee furnished any submissions for explaining the reasons for non appearance on the dates fixed by the AO for hearing. We, therefore, in the absence of relevant material on the record deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 23.10.2017

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →