ANIL KUMAR AVASTHI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO 3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 47/LKW/2021Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 July 2022AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if an assessee appears in subsequent proceedings and the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), any earlier default should be ignored, and no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be levied.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 13 days due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance in initial proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when the assessee appears in subsequent proceedings and assessment is completed under Section 143(3), despite initial non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Hearing: 26/07/2022Pronounced: 28/07/2022

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dated 12/03/2021 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, Learned A. R. invited our attention to the fact that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 13 days and our attention was also invited to copy of application dated 24/05/2021 for condonation of delay wherein the reason for delay in filing the appeal has been mentioned. Learned A. R. explained that the appeal could not be filed within the time for the reason that the Government had declared a lockdown owing to spread of pandemic COVID-19 and the office of the Chartered Accountant was closed. It was submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed Assessment Year:2011-12 2 time therefore, the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard. Learned D. R. had no objection to the condonation of delay. Finding the reason plausible for delay in filing the appeal, the delay was condoned and both parties were heard.

3.

During the course of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that during the course of assessment proceedings initially the assessee could not appear, but later on, assessee has appeared and filed reply to show cause notice, but Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that once the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should have been levied. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax reported in 115 TTJ 419 (Delhi) in which it has been held that the order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act and the defaults committed earlier by the assessee should be ignored by the Assessing Officer, as there was good compliance in assessment proceedings. Therefore, in such circumstances there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful.

4.

Ld. DR of the Revenue placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We find that the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed a reply to show cause notice and later on the Assessing Officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. We have also carefully examined the order of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak (Supra), and we are of the view that whenever the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in subsequent proceeding and assessment has Assessment Year:2011-12 3 been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the default committed in earlier proceedings should be ignored and no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should be levied. Since the assessee has appeared in subsequent proceeding and assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, no penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 28/07/2022)

Sd/. Sd/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) Vice President Accountant Member

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 →