PRINTLINK COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 22/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 July 2017AY 2010-113 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 since the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, it implies that the assessee's subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) to the assessee. The assessee did not comply with these notices, leading to a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(b). The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with statutory notices when the assessment is completed under section 143(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 31/07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.22/CTK/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-2011

Printlink Computer and Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), Communication Pvt Ltd., Plot Bhubaneswar. No.783, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AABCP 0619 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 31/07/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31 /07/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT-

1, Bhubaneswar dated 6.10.2015 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty under

section 271(1)(b) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for Rs.10,000/-

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer issued

notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2)of the Act requiring the assessee to produce

the books of account and other details. Since, there was no compliance by

the assessee, to the statutory notice the Assessing Officer levied penalty

of Rs.10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

2 ITA No .22/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

4.

On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing

Officer.

5.

Before us ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that ld A.R. of the

assessee had fully co-operated in the assessment proceedings and

assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, as can be seen from the

assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act passed on 8.3.2013. Hence, it

cannot be said that there was no compliance by the assessee to the

statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Hence, he prayed that

the penalty should be deleted.

6.

On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities.

7.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record, we find from the assessment

order that the Assessing Officer has stated in his order that before him the

ld A.R. of the assessee appeared and filed written submissions. The

Assessing Officer also admits in the assessment order that ld A.R. produced

bills and vouchers in support of the claim of deduction. The only ground on

which penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act has been levied by the Assessing

officer is that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices before

him. In the similar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the

Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Raj Enterprise vs ITO,

Ward-9(1) in ITA No.958/Ahd/2011 [Asstt. Year: 2007-08] order dated

4.5.2011 has held that when an assessment has been made under

sec.143(3) and not under sec.144 of the I.T. Act, it means that subsequent

3 ITA No .22/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good

compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the

Assessing Officer and, therefore, there is no case for levy of penalty under

sec.271(1)(b) of the Act. We find that in the present appeal also, the facts

are identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Ahmedabad

Tribunal in the case of M/s.Raj Enterprise (supra), we set aside the orders

of lower authorities and delete the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- under

sec.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2017. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31 /07/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Printlink Computer and Communication Pvt Ltd., Plot No.783, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent. ACIT, Circle 2(2), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

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 →