SHRI ANIL KUMAR BIDDUA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned) Commissioner of Income-tax

(Appeals)-I, Bhopal [in short CIT (A)] dated 30.06.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07, which in

turn has arisen from the order dated 24.04.2014 passed under section 271(1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer 1(1), Bhopal (in short “the AO”).

the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied under section 271(1) (b) of the Act.

filed any return of income. An AIR information was received for non Pana Data that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 4 Lakh in mutual fund. Therefore, after recording reason, notice u/s.148 was

issued on 26.03.2013, but no return of income was filed, hence, after following due process of law,

assessment was made under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 4 lakhs. During the course

Shri Anil Kumar Biddua v. ITO1 (1)/I.T.A. No. 1017/Ind/2016/A.Y.:06-07 Page 2 of 3

of assessment proceedings, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 01.08.2013 fixing the hearing on

14.08. 2013. However, same was not complied with nor any reply to show cause notice u/s. 274 read

with section 271(1) (b) dtd. 21.10.2013 was filed nor any written submissions were made. Again, a show

cause notice u/s. 274 read with section 271(1) (b) issued 11.04.2014 for fixing hearing on 23.04.2014,

which was served through speed post. In response to which, none attended nor any written

submissions/explanation was furnished. In view of these facts and circumstances, the AO levied a

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was levied under section 271(1) (b) of the Act.

appellate proceedings, the appellant merely submitted that the assessee did not receive notice by speed

post. However, ld. CIT (A) observed that penalty order was also sent on same address and the assessee

has duly received it and appeal was filed against this order. Therefore, the contention was not found

acceptable and as seen that the assessee has not attended the assessment proceedings nor compelled

with notice under section 142(1). It is not even complied with show cause notice under section 271(1)

(b). Accordingly, levy of penalty was cam to be confirmed.

the assessee has not receive the notice under section 142(1) of the Act as the notice was sent on wrong

postal address at G/S Old Police Colony behind Civil Court Bhopal whereas assessee`s correct address

was G/5 old Police Colony behind Civil Court Bhopal. The Ld. A.R. also filed a copy of bank pass book in

support of correct address. Therefore, there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notice.

The assessee has made all efforts to obtain and submit the information as and when it came to his

knowledge. The counsel of the assessee appeared before the CIT(A) after receiving penalty order by

hand from Department and not because the notice was received by postal address by the assessee.

Therefore, the assessee was unable to comply with, the notices issued to him.

Shri Anil Kumar Biddua v. ITO1 (1)/I.T.A. No. 1017/Ind/2016/A.Y.:06-07 Page 3 of 3

assessee has failed to furnishing return of income nor any compliance of the statutory notices was

made. Therefore, the assessee has committed a default within the meaning of section 271(1) (b) of the

Act. Hence, ld. CIT (A) as well as the AO were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1) (b) of the

Act.

on record. We find that the assessee has not complied with the notice as it was sent on wrong postal

address at G/S Old Police Colony behind Civil Court Bhopal whereas assessee`s correct address was G/5

old Police Colony behind Civil Court Bhopal. The Ld. A.R. has filed copy of bank pass book of Bank of

Baroda, giving postal address as G/5 Old Police Line. Which supports his contention of correct address.

Therefore, there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of the notice. We also note that the

assessee has made all efforts to obtain and submit the information as and when it came to his

knowledge and accordingly received the penalty order from Department by hand and made reply before

the Ld. CIT (A) . Thus, the counsel of the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A) after receiving penalty

order by hand from Department and not because the notice was received by postal address by the

assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that this constituted the reasonable cause. In view of these

facts and circumstances, we are of view that the AO was not justified in levying of penalty u/s 271(1) (b)

of the Act. In view of this matter, we cancelled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Sd/- Sd/-

(सी.एम.गग�)/(C.M. GARG) (ओ.पी.मीना) /(O.P.MEENA) �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 20.03.2017/op