SHRI HEMANT VASHISHTHA,AGRA vs. ITO 4(5), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 39/AGR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 October 2017AY 2013-145 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 found that the assessee's counsel's affidavit provided reasonable cause for non-compliance. The counsel was either unable to meet the AO due to the AO's absence or was occupied with other professional work.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty after multiple notices were ignored, and the CIT(A) confirmed it.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had reasonable cause for not complying with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, and if so, whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was justified.

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, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Munna Lal Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.08.2017Pronounced: 24.10.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA

BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No. 39/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14)

Hemant Vashishtha, Vs.. ITO 2(4), F-195 Kamla Nagar, Agra Agra PAN No. ACHPV 8568 K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Assessee by Shri Munna Lal Agarwal, CA Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 30.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 24.10.2017

ORDER 1. This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/-, levied on the assessee u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As per the penalty order, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was sent to the assessee on 08.04.2015, for compliance on 16.04.2015. On no compliance, again, notice dated 07.05.2015, u/s 142(1) of the Act,

I.T.A No. 39/Agra/2017 2

was issued, for compliance on 16.06.2015. Still there was no compliance. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, which was also not complied with. As such, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 3. I have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee had submitted that the default was on the part of the counsel for the assessee; and that however, neither any evidence, nor any affidavit had been filed to support this contention; and that even the assessee’s counsel had not admitted any default on his part. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 28.08.2017, wherein, it has, interalia, been contended that:

“3. That further the case was again fixed & notice dated 08.04.15 was issued for making compliance on 15.04.2015 the deponent, the council of the assessee attended & found that the AO was not on his seat & gone to the CIT office on his call. 4. That the AO again issued notice dated 07.05.2015 to make compliance on 24.05.2015 on this date, the council of the assessee was busy in other professional work & also couldn’t collect the information required by this AO and hence could not make compliances on that date.

I.T.A No. 271/Agra/2013 3

5.

That again the final notice was issued by the A.O. dated 17.06.2015 for making compliance on 08.07.2015, Again the deponent, the council of the assessee due to his busyness in other case couldn’t attend the AO office.”

5.

From the above contents of the affidavit filed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it is seen that the ld. Counsel has stated on oath that on 16.04.2015, the Assessing Officer was not available, whereas on 24.05.2015 and 08.07.2015, the proceedings could not be attended to, the ld. Counsel for the assessee having been held up in some other cases. Thus, it was reasonable cause that prevented the assessee from making compliance to the notices issued to him by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the assessee is deleted.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/10/2017.

Sd/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 24/10/2017 Aks/-

I.T.A No. 39/Agra/2017 4

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 →