SH. BALDEV SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 August 2018AY 2014-152 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 order was unsustainable because it did not specify the exact date of default for which the penalty was levied. The absence of this crucial information rendered the penalty order invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was levied under section 271(1)(b) for this non-compliance. The assessee argued that his age and reliance on his nephew for tax matters constituted reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be sustained when the specific date of default for non-compliance with notices is not clearly stated in the penalty order.

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, DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan singh
For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Hearing: 25/07/2018Pronounced: 06/08/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.292/Chd/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Shri Baldev Singh Vs. The ITO, SCF-1, Sector-20C Ward 3(2) Chandigarh Chandigarh PAN No. AHVPB1502E

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. Tej Mohan singh Respondent By : Smt. Chandrakanta

Date of hearing : 25/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06/08/2018

ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 12/01/2018.

2.

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds;

1.

That eth order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 has erred in law as well as on facts in levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) without correctly appreciating the fact that the non attendance of assessment proceedings was due to some reasonable circumstances. 3. Brief facts of the case are that penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was levied under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply the notices issued under section 142(1) along with questionnaires dt. 17/06/2016, 14/07/2016, 29/07/2016.

4.

Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that “simply ignoring the notice of the Department, with the expectation that it is bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to keep on posting the case for hearing several times before, the assessee chose to comply, is reprehensible. When there is continuous non- compliance, the Assessing Officer cannot presume on behalf of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The assessee’s arguments that notices were received late from the Department or the assessee

was a senior citizen and was almost 60 years of age in 2016 and his income tax matters are being looked after by his nephew and due to this the assessee was not able to attend the assessment proceedings due to any other problem shows casual approach of the assessee and cannot be ignored”.

5.

Before us, Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a person aged about 60 and his matters are looked after by his nephew and hence was not able to attend the assessment proceedings. It was argued that it is not clear from the penalty order as to which date of default of non attendance the penalty was levied.

6.

Ld. DR argued that non compliance to the notice issued shows disregard of the assessee for the statutory notices issued and therefore it is a fit case for levy of penalty and the reasons given by the Ld. AR cannot be accepted as valid and reasonable. She argued that there was non-compliance of the notices issued on 14/07/2016 and 29/07/2016 which makes it a fit case for levy of penalty.

7.

We have heard both the parties and we find that the date of default for which penalty been levied has not been mentioned. The Assessing Officer ought to have made it clear as to which the penalty is being levied. In the absence of such crucial component and when the order is silent on the date of default for which the penalty was levied, we hold that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot survive.

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 8.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 06/08/2018 AG

Copy to:

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) The DR 5.

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 →