SMT. PINABEN PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-1 (1) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/RJT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 January 2023AY 2011-12Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, which was not considered by the lower authorities. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices issued under Section 142(1) during assessment proceedings, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The assessee claimed a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to a representative's departure.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) is justified when there was a reasonable cause for the failure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16.01.2023Pronounced: 20.01.2023

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.

2.

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.

4.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

5.

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.

6.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

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.

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 →