SMT. VEENA KAPOOR,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.293/Chd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt. Veena Kapoor, Vs. The ITO, SCF-1, Sector 20-C, Ward 3(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN No. AIGPK9583N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh Respondent by : Shri Manjit Singh, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 19.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the

assessee against the order dated 12.01.2018 of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Chandigarh

[hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(Appeals)].

regarding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), amounting to Rs.10,000/-

on account of failure of the assessee to appear and furnish

the requisite information in compliance of the notice issued

to it by the Assessing Officer during assessment

proceedings.

for assessee pointed out that the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of

2 ITA No.293/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

the Act was levied for non-compliance of the statutory

notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 17.6.2016,

14.7.2016 and 29.7.2016. The Ld. counsel for assessee

stated that the assessee had reasonable cause for not

attending to the said notices as was also submitted during

the appellate proceedings to the CIT(Appeals). Drawing our

attention to the contentions made before the

Ld.CIT(Appeals) in this regard, the Ld. counsel for assessee

stated that the notice dated 17.6.2016 fixing the date of

hearing on 23.6.2016 could not be complied with by the

assessee for the reason that it was received late i.e. only on

17.7.2016, much beyond the date fixed for hearing in the

said notice. It was further pointed out that the assessee

was a senior citizen lady of almost 63 years of age and was

a pensioner from the Department of Public Relations,

Government of Punjab. It was pointed out that she had met

with an accident in September, 2015 and due to which her

four ribs had got broken and was undergoing treatment for

her fracture and other complications. It was pointed out

that for the above reasons, the assessee being in a difficult

situation in the months of July and August, the notices

could not be sent to her counsel and hence it resulted in

the non compliance with the notices dated 14.7.2016 and

29.7.2016 fixing the hearing for 21.7.2016 and 5.8.2016

respectively. It was pointed out that her son was looking

after her and being focused more on the recovery of his

mother, the notices remained uncomplied with and as a

consequence, there was a delay in appearing before the

3 ITA No.293/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

Assessing Officer. Thus it was contended that non-

compliance of the notices on the part of the assessee was

not intentional but was on account of circumstances beyond

her control. It was thereafter pointed out that the Assessing

Officer had passed the impugned penalty order without

affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was

pointed out that show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act

was issued on 26.8.2016 fixing the hearing of the case on

31.8.2016 and when the counsel for assessee went to attend

the date he was told that the Assessing Officer was not

available as he was in the field for survey duty. The

assessee, therefore, though submitted a part reply to the

questionnaire issued to the assessee during the assessment

proceedings but was unable to respond to the show cause

notice issued u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and to explain the

circumstances on account of which the notices remained

uncomplied with. It was pointed out that thereafter on the

next date itself, without affording any further opportunity

of hearing, order u/s 271(1)(b) was passed levying penalty

of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee.

compliance of the notices showed utter disregard of the

assessee towards the statutory notices issued to her and,

therefore, it was a fit case for levy of penalty and that all

the reasons cited by the assessee merely reflect the casual

approach of the assessee who could have very well

requested for adjournment on the said dates or explain the

4 ITA No.293/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

reason for the same, instead not attending the hearing at

all. The Ld. DR, therefore, stated that it was a fit case for

levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel for assessee.

The Ld. counsel for assessee has duly demonstrated the

existence of reasonable cause for not attending to the

hearing on the impugned dates. None of the factual

submissions made by the Ld. counsel for assessee in this

regard have been rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore the

fact that one of the notices was received late or that the

assessee was a senior citizen who had met with an accident

and was, therefore, in no condition to promptly attend to

the hearing, we find are sufficient and reasonable

explanations for the non compliance. Further considering

the fact that the assessment proceedings were thereafter

duly attended to by the assessee and after duly scrutinizing

the case order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed in the case

of the assessee. It is clear that non-compliance of the

impugned notices was un-intentional and beyond the

control of the assessee and the assessee had reasonable

and justifiable cause for not attending the case on the said

dates of hearing. In view of the same, we hold that it was

not a fit case for levy of penalty and penalty, therefore,

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

directed to be deleted.

5 ITA No.293/Chd/2018 A.Y.2014-15

stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11.07.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 11th July, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh