Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pinaben Piyushkumar Patel Vs. ITO “SHIVAM”, Paramount Park, Ward-1(1)(5), Street No. 5, Opp. Shivshakti Rajkot Colony, University Road, Rajkot-360005 [PAN No.AQAPP4342A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 16.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.01.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi for A.Y. 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee read as under: “1. The grounds raised in this appeal are without to prejudice to one another.
2. The Learned A.O. erred in law and on facts in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and facts in retaining the same. On the facts and circumstances of case it is contended that the penalty levied deserves to be deleted.
3. As there was a reasonable cause for alleged non compliance of the notice the penalty levied deserves to be deleted.
4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the ground stated here above.”
3. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2018. The assessment under Pinaben Piyushkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 - Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was finalized on 12.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs. 13,10,373/- by making addition of Rs. 2,94,483/- being 2% of share transaction and Rs. 8,43,190/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was initiated. During the course of assessment proceedings notice under Section 142(1) were issued on 11.09.2018 and 12.10.2018 but the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. Therefore, the assessee was given notice under Section 271(1)(b) dated 02.05.2019. The assessee filed the reply which was not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer and therefore imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 10.06.2019.
Being aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
At time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) by the assessee which are extracted in the respective orders.
The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has given details to one Shri Vimalbhai Gohel for preparing the submissions as well as the documents to be filed during the assessment proceedings. But Shri Vimalbhai Gohel left the Rajkot due to certain circumstances and could not file the detail during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has filed affidavit of Pinaben Piyushkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 - Vimalbhai Gohel who was not considered by the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). The assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as during the penalty proceedings submitted the reply that there was a reasonable cause for not producing the details during the assessment proceedings. In fact, Section 271(1)(b) has categorically stated that if the assessee failed to comply with notice in the sub-Section 1 of Section 142 the Assessing Officer may direct the assessee to pay penalty for such failure. But in the present case there was a reasonable cause which was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer. As per the decisions cited by the Ld. D.R. in case of Amrit Singh 64 CCH 162 and Sanjay Dalmia 102 CCH 020 the present case defers as the assessee is an individual who is not well-versed with the intricacy of the Income Tax law. Therefore, the case law cited will not be applicable in the present case. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.