MR. MADAN MOHAN MISHRA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.3(2), MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 56/AGR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 December 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance due to personal circumstances, including a matrimonial dispute involving his daughter. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessment order itself indicated that the assessee had complied with various notices by furnishing details.

What were the issues?

Whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with notices, and if so, whether there was a reasonable cause for such non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Utsav Sahgal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Hearing: 12.12.2017Pronounced: 21.12.2017

This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 against the confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee has

contended that as per the assessment order dated 14.12.2011, which was passed u/s

143(3) of the IT Act, the case of the AO himself is that the assessee had made

compliance of various notices issued to him by furnishing the requisite

evidences/details. As per the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it was only for this

I.T.A No. 56/Agra/2016 2

reason, that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and not u/s 144 of the Act thereto; and that being so, there was no failure on the part of the assessee. 2. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 3. I have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. The assessment order dated 14.12.2011 has been passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. As such, the compliance by the assessee to the notices issued to him stands accepted. This compliance could not be made initially for reasons beyond the control of the assessee, as stated. The assessee is an ex-army personnel. During the year, he was working with the Security Services Organization and was also getting pension from the Army. The assessee’s daughter is an advocate. There was a matrimonial dispute. The assessee’s daughter was granted divorce by the Competent Court. It was in these circumstances, that the compliance to the notices could not initially be made. The assessee was, thus, prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause. In ‘Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT’, 115 4. TTJ 419 (Del) and ‘Parmeshwari Textiles vs. ITO’, 146 Taxmann 38 (Jodhpur), amongst other cases, under similar circumstances, penalties have been deleted. 5. In view of the above, the penalty imposed on the assessee is deleted.

I.T.A No. 56/Agra/2016 3

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/12/2017.

Sd/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 21 /12/2017 *AKV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

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 →