M/S SHIVEK LABS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1102/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 March 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the abstinence from proceedings was due to a reasonable cause. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one opportunity for the assessee to make submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to attend proceedings before the CIT(A) due to a notice allegedly not being handed over by the watchman. The CIT(A) confirmed a penalty for non-compliance. The assessee appealed, claiming a reasonable cause for non-attendance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly confirmed when the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-attendance before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh
For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Hearing: 05.03.2018Pronounced: 05/03/2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos.1102/Chd/2017
ITA Nos.1103/Chd/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER BENCH :

Both the above appeals have been filed by the different Assessees against the similar order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dt. 24/04/2017.

Since the issues raised in both the above appeals are common therefore

they are being decided together for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA

No. 1102/Chd/2017 as a lead case.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds in ITA No. 1102/CHD/2017:

1.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 has erred in law as well as on facts in levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) without correctly appreciating the fact that the non attendance of assessment of assessment proceedings was due to some reasonable circumstances.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was framed u/s

143(3) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) were initiated for non-

compliance of notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) fixed the hearing on 20.04.2017, but nobody attended on

that date. The notice of hearing dated 10.04.2017 for 20.04.2017 was duly

served on the assessee on 18.04.2017 as per confirmation of the Notice Server.

No adjournment was sought for and no written submission was filed before the

Ld. CIT(A). Hence, it was presumed that the assessee does not want to say

anything and the appeal was decided on the basis of material available on

record.

5.

Since the assessee remained non- cooperative the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-

imposed was confirmed.

6.

Before us the assessee submitted that the notice was received by the

watchman who has defaulted in handing over the notice to the assessee. It was

pleaded that given an opportunity relevant submissions would be made before

the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

We find that the penalty has been confirmed as the assessee could not

attend the proceedings and the abstinence from the proceeding is due to a

reasonable cause, hence we remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to

accord one opportunity and to consider the submission of the assessee.

And we believe that the assessee will not belay the confidence reposed upon

and will not abuse the opportunity given while submitting compliance before

the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 8.

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 05/03/2018

AG

Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR

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 →