SABA SIMRAN KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

During the hearing, Shri G.P. Mehta, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that on 01.10.2013, the assessee approached the office of the Assessing Officer wherein neither the staff nor the Assessing Officer was present in the office. It was contended that the assessee duly co-operated with the Assessing Officer and furnished the necessary details. Our attention was invited to the finding contained in the assessment order. On the other hand, Ms. Arju Garodia, learned D.R. strongly defended the imposition as well as confirmation of penalty by contending that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date, therefore, the Assessing Officer was constrained to impose penalty upon the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed her return of income on 13.09.2006, declaring total income of Rs. 14,45,880. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee on 29.03.2013. Thereafter, notice u/s 3 Smt. Saba Simran Khan 142(1) of the Act was issued on 26.08.2013, requiring the assessee to furnish information / documents. The assessee requested for adjournment. As per the Revenue, on 01.10.2013, nobody appeared before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking the assessee to appear on 09.01.2014, as to why penalty should not be initiated for non-compliance of the notices. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that on 01.10.2013, the assessee / authorized representative went to the office of the Assessing Officer but neither any staff was found nor the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessee / authorized representative came back and, thus, the penalty was imposed on 21.02.2014. We have perused the assessment order wherein there has been categorically mentioned that the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished the details. In view of these contradictory finding, we find no justification for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. We are satisfied, as narrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the assessee duly appeared before the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of facts and 4 Smt. Saba Simran Khan the assertions made from both the sides, it seems that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty to secure the presence of the assessee only. Thus, the penalty so imposed is directed to be deleted.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19th March, 2018.