Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Delhi, dated 25/11/2013 for A.Y 2001-02 passed in first appeal No. 67/2012-13.
Although the assessee has raised as many as five grounds in this appeal, but except the main effective ground No. 2, all the rest are supportive to the main ground which reads as follows:
“2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well as in fats of the case in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- without any logical reasoning and under erroneous appreciation of facts.”
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have carefully perused the relevant material placed on record on the Tribunal inter alia assessment order and order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the registered office of the assessee was shifted from 8645, Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi to C-5/19, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi w.e.f.
16.12.2002 and it was intimated to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana on 27.12.2002 and the return of income for A.Y 2001-02 was filed from the new address. The ld. AR pointed out that all the notices were issued to the assessee on the old address and in all probabilities, the notices issued at the old address were not served on the assessee and in all probabilities all notices would have been returned by postal authorities as unserved. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and hence the same may kindly be directed to be deleted.
Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of AO as well as the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee did not comply with the noticed issued to it hence penalty was levied on the legal and justified basis
We have considered the arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. We find from the copy of the Form No. 18 under Companies Act, 1956, that the change in address of the assessee company was from 8645, Arakshan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi to C-5/19, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi w.e.f. 16.12.2002 and Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana on 27.12.2002 and the return of income for A.Y 2001-02 was filed from the new address. This fact could not be controverted by the authorities below as well as by the ld. DR. Further, from the copies of the return from 2003 till 2011-12, it is apparent that the assessee is regularly filing return from the new address and for the first time, return for A.Y 2003-04 was filed on 25.7.2003 and new address of Rana Pratap Bagh has been mentioned informing about the new address. This fact has also not been controverted by the authorities below and the ld. DR.
From the impugned penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act it has been alleged that the failed to comply with the notices issued to it during assessment proceedings but no specific instances or fact about the particular notice(s) has been mentioned. The AO has passed penalty order exparte. In the first para of the assessment order dated 28.11.2008, it has been alleged that notices issued to the assessee dated 26.3.2008 and 24.7.2008 remained unresponded but there is no recording of finding to this effect that despite of due service of notice it remained uncomplied.
Further, as we have noted above that the assessee shifted its office from earlier address to new address on 16.12.2002 and in the return for A.Y 2003-04 filed on 25.7.2003 the new address has been informed to the AO, thus we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. AR that the notices dated 20.3.2008 and 29.7.2008 issued to the new address cannot be even presumed to be validly served upon the assessee because the assessee had sold the said property of old address much before i.e. 8.9.2005. In these 3
circumstances, the assessee cannot be held guilty of voluntarily and deliberately non complying with notices issued by the AO at the old address thus the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) cannot be held as sustainable and hence we demolish the same and the AO is directed to delete the penalty.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2016.