Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
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’).
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/05/2017