AMOL CAPITAL MARKETS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5232/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2012-133 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 penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not warranted as the assessee had submitted the required details before the date of hearing. Non-appearance on a single date, when details were provided, was not a sufficient reason for imposing the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a questionnaire under section 142(1) to the assessee, requiring certain details and attendance on a specific date. The assessee failed to appear on that date but submitted the requested details a day prior. The AO imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be levied for non-appearance on a single hearing date when the required details were submitted prior to the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, AR
For Respondent: Shri Anju Goradia, DR
Hearing: 13/04/2017Pronounced: 12/05/2017

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. It is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-9, Mumbai and arises out of the order u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

2.

The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances and in law in confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) by A.O. ii. Reasons given by Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of A.O. are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence on record and in law.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 21.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. As apparent from the order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.), a questionnaire u/s 142(1) dated 09.05.2014 was issued and served on the assessee requiring to furnish certain details and attend the hearing on 20.05.2014. The A.O. has mentioned that (i) there was no compliance by the assessee on the above date and (ii) the assessee did not even file a letter seeking adjournment. However, the A.O. has mentioned that the assessee submitted the related details vide letter dated 19.05.2014. The A.O. then issued a show cause letter dated 28.08.2014 to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(b) should not be levied as there was failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.05.2014. The A.O. fixed the penalty proceedings for hearing on 19.09.2014. There was no compliance by the assessee on the above date. Therefore, the A.O. imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee neither took permission from the A.O. to prepone the hearing by filing any letter nor did the assessee comply fully before the A.O. on or prior to the first date of hearing on 20.05.2014. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(b).

5. Before us the learned counsel of the assessee submits that it could not appear before the A.O. on 20.05.2014 because of genuine difficulty. However, the assessee filed the details called for vide submission dated 19.05.2014. It is thus submitted that non-appearance on a single date should not have led to imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the A.O.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the A.O. has imposed the said penalty only because the assessee could not appear before him on 20.05.2014. However, the assessee filed the details called for vide submission dated 19.05.2014. The assessee has thus filed the details one day before the date of hearing fixed on 20.05.2014. There being no sufficient reason to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(b), the same is cancelled.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/05/2017

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 →