Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM
O R D E R Per Bench: These captioned seven appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2012-13, are directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata in Appeal No.392/DCIT,CC-4(3),Kol/CIT(A)-21/KOL/14-15 dated 17.02.2016, confirming the penalty levied by the AO of Rs.20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
These seven appeals relate to the same assessee, different Assessment Years, identical issues are involved, therefore, these have clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Appeal of the assessee in Assessment Year 2006-07 is taken as a lead case.
The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee (in lead case in ITA No.792/Kol/2016) are as under: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty to the tune of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
2. For that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non-appearance during the course of assessment proceedings.
M/s. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill to 798/Kol/2016 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2012-13 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal
.”
5. The brief facts qua the issue are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the I.T Act, 1961 was conducted in the Paul Group on 17.01.2012 and on subsequent dates at different residential office and factory premises at Dakshin Dinajpur and Kolkata. The assessee, being one of the key persons of Paul Group had been covered under the search and seizure operations. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued statutory notices u/s 142(1) on various dates including on 12.06.2013 and on 13.12.2013 requesting to furnish reply of the queries with supporting documents on 21.06.2013 & on 20.12.2013 respectively. However, on none of the above dates, neither the assessee represented before the AO personally nor through the Authorized Representative or filed any letter for adjournment. Therefore, the AO treated these defaults as non-compliance of statutory notices. Accordingly, the AO levied penalty of Rs.20,000/- on two instances of default in respect of notices dated on 12.06.2013 and on 13.12.2013. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who has 6. confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.20,000/- .
7. During the penalty proceedings, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailing the imposition of penalty submitted that the AO had imposed penalty in an arbitrary manner and submitted that the assessee had no intention to defy or disobey the statutory notices served on him during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the fact that Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, who is the partner of the assessee company and was looking after the taxation matter of company. The elder brother of Shri Ranjan Kr. Paul, Shri Ranjit Kr. Paul was very critical due to severe illness. Due to medical treatment of one of the family members, none was able to attend the hearing. So, there were two defaults i.e. on 12.06.2013 and on 13.12.2013. In view of this, it was pleaded by ld. counsel that there was no wisdom in the assessment order in respect of alleged non-compliance. The ld. counsel also drew our attention to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ACIT (2008) 5 DTR (Del) (Trib) 429, in which it was held that where an order under Section 143(3) has been issued and not under Section 144 of the Act, the same implies that the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings is Page | 2