M/S. SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4750/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 April 2017AY 2007-086 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with sufficient time to respond to the notices and there was no mention of non-cooperation in the assessment orders. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee was issued notices under Section 142(1) with a very short period for compliance. The assessee's explanation for non-compliance was that their accountant was unwell. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly imposed when the assessee was not given adequate time to comply with the notices issued under Section 142(1) and there was no evidence of non-cooperation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

ORDER PER BENCH

These 07 appeals are filed by assessee against the separate Orders all dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2011-12 respectively. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is similar and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2005-06).

2.

The common grounds raised in all the Appeals read as under:-

1.

That Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act in spite of the fact that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the assessee for being present on the date of hearing and assessee having fully cooperated in the overall assessment proceedings.

2. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any one or more of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the penalty order for Assessment Years 2005-06, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act along with questionnaire were issued on 19.11.2012, fixing the case for 26.11.2012. On 26.11.2012, neither anybody attended the proceedings, nor the requisite information/details were filed. A show cause notice imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(b) of the Act was issued on 07.12.2012. In response, vide reply dated 26.12.2012, the assessee explained that his Accountant was not feeling well. The Assessing Officer, not satisfied with the said reply, imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act.

4. Against the aforesaid penalty, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order has confirmed the penalty.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. At the time of hearing, Id. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the notice issued u/s 142 (1) had been issued affording a very short period of time, fixing the date for 26.11.2012. It is contended that the penalty was wrongly imposed since the assessee did not commit any default in appearance before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. He further stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the various orders of different Benches of ITAT, Delhi in other cases of the group of the Assessee, as per details given below and filed the copies of the orders.

- ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Delhi – Kamla Madan Vs. DCIT in to 4677/Del/2013 dated 31.1.14

- ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Delhi – Lakshmi Chand Madan Vs. DCIT in to 4697/Del/2013 dated 31.1.14 - ITAT, ‘E’ Bench, Delhi – Manjusha Madan in ITA No. 4698 to 4703/Del/2013 dated 31.1.14 - ITAT, ‘F’ Bench, Delhi – Roop Kishore Madan in ITA No. 4743 to 4749/Del/2013 dated 30.1.14 - ITAT, ‘G’ Bench, Delhi – Sanya Hospital & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. In to 4664/Del/2013 dated 14.2.14

- ITAT, ‘G’ Bench, Delhi – Sanya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. In to 4670/Del/2013 dated 14.2.14

- ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Delhi – Dhruv Madan in ITA No.

4678 to 4683/Del/2013 dated 24.6.14

- ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Delhi – Chhavi Dass in ITA No. 4684 to 4690/Del/2013 dated 25.6.14

- ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Delhi – Bela Madan in ITA No. 4738

& Ors. /Del/2013 dated 28.11.14

5.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR, has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee in other cases of the group of the Assessee, as aforesaid. We find that firstly, even as per the penalty orders, it has been observed that the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 19.11.2012, for fixing the case for 26.11.2012, giving a very short time of only six days. Moreover, as to when these notices were served, rather as to whether such notices were at all, does not find mention in the penalty orders. Thus the assessee was not provided sufficient time to respond to the notice. We further find that ITAT ‘D’ Bench, Delhi in other group of assessee i.e. Kamla Madan Vs. DCIT in to 4677/Del/2013 & Lakshmi Chand Madan Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 4691 to 4697/Del/2013 vide dated 31.1.14 has held as under:-

“6. Having heard the parties in the light of the material placed on record, we find that firstly, even as per the penalty orders, it has been observed that the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 19.11.2012, for 26.11.2012, giving a very short time of only six days.

Moreover, as to when these notices were served, rather as to whether such notices were at all, does not find mention in the penalty orders. Thus the assessee was not provided sufficient time to respond to the notice.

6.1 Further, a perusal of the assessment orders shows that there is no mention therein, of any non-cooperation by the assessee with the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find these cases to be fit for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Such penalties are, therefore, deleted in all the cases, the facts, mutatis mutandis being exactly similar in all of them.”

7.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we do not see any non-cooperation on the part of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find these cases to be fit for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Such penalties are, therefore, deleted in all the cases, the facts, mutatis mutandis being exactly similar in all of them.

8.

In the result, all the 07 appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/04/2017.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →