Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM
िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Tinish R Mody, C.A राज�व क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 28/08/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012- 13, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’ for short] dated 24.05.2023, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 23.02.2022.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned CIT(A) NFAC DELHI erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned A.O to the tune of Rs.10,000/- without considering the facts of the case, favourably.”
A.Y. 12-13 Shobhanaben Ana Sorathia 3. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment stage, Assessing Officer issued various notices and the compliance of which are given below:
S.No Description Date of issue Remarks 1 Notice u/s 148 29,.03.2019 Filed return of income 19/04/2019 2 Notice u/s 143(2) 06/08/2019 Nobody attended or filed any details 3 Notice u/s 142(1) 07.11.2019 Nobody attended or filed any details 4 Show cause notice 14.11.2019 Nobody attended or filed any details The Ld. Counsel explained before the Bench that Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2019 and in response to notice u/s 148, assessee filed her return of income on 19.04.2019. Therefore the assessee made the compliance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 06.08.2019 and this is a statutory notice, therefore no any submission made by assessee against the statutory notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 142(1) on 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 respectively. The Ld. Counsel submitted that earlier two notices were sent by Assessing Officer physically on the given address of assessee and assessee received those notices. However, second time two notices u/s 142(1) dated 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 were issued by Assessing Officer through e-portal and as soon as assessee received e-mail, the assessee replied on 21.11.2019 against those two notices issued u/s 142(1) dated 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 respectively. The assessee was in the impression that Assessing Officer would send physical copy of notice to assessee and therefore assessee could not open her e-mail to see whether notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by Assessing Officer. However, as soon as assessee received e-mail she filed reply on 21.11.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that no any notice remained unattended on the part of assessee hence assessee has attended entire notice therefore penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel also A.Y. 12-13 Shobhanaben Ana Sorathia pointed out that statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 06.08.2019 was issued to assessee before furnishing reasons recorded u/s 147 of the Act to the assessee and therefore assessee was not able to reply such notice.
On the other hand, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee did not make any compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019, therefore penalty should be imposed on assessee for non-compliance.
We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. We note that Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2019 and against said notice assessee filed her return of income on 19.04.2019, therefore there is a compliance made by assessee. About second notice u/s143(2) dated 06.08.2019, we note that this notice was issued to assessee without furnishing the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. We also note that notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory notice and it is issued by Assessing Officer to get the jurisdiction to make the scrutiny assessment and normally, assessee does not submit the document and papers against such notice. However, against notice u/s 142(1) of the Act the assessee submitted the documents and evidence required by the Assessing Officer for scrutiny assessment purposes. We note that third notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.11.2019 was issued to assessee and second notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 14.11.2019 to the assessee. In this connection, we note that earlier two notices were sent by Assessing Officer by way of physical mode, however, the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 were sent to assessee through e-mail. The assessee was in the hope that other notices would also be sent by way of physical mode. Therefore, assessee has not checked her e-mail portal to see the notices. However, as soon as the assessee checked her e-mail assessee found that notice u/s 142(1) was issued by Assessing Officer and thereafter assessee took the print out of two notices A.Y. 12-13 Shobhanaben Ana Sorathia and submitted her reply on 21.11.2019 before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we note that last notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 14.11.2019 and assessee after six days, filed her reply to Assessing Officer on 21.11.2019. Therefore there is sufficient compliance made on the part of assessee. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted the reasons for non-compliance which is mentioned in page 1 and 2 of the paper book.
We have gone through the sequence of events as narrated by the assessee and note that in response to notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) on 07.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 the Assessing Officer has not given reasonable time to assessee to reply. The above sequence of events established that assessee was co-operated with the Department and the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. However, we note that there was irregularity in disposing of the objection raised by the assessee against re-opening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act which was after four months. Therefore there is irregularity on the part of Assessing Officer also, which we have observed with the help of sequence of events narrated above, therefore, we note that there is sufficient compliance on the part of assessee to response such notices. Hence, no penalty should be levied on the assessee and therefore we delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.