M/s Singhal Software,, Panchkula v. ITO,, Parwanoo

ITA 1225/CHANDI/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 122521514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAEFS8072Q
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1225/CHANDI/2009
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant M/s Singhal Software,, Panchkula
Respondent ITO,, Parwanoo
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 30-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 30-11-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 23-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1223 TO 1226/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1998-99 TO 2000-01 & 2002-03 M/S SINGHAL SOFTWARE VS. THE ITO PANCHKULA PARWANOO PAN NO. AAEFS 8072 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHIMLA DATED 30.11.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 2 71 (1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. THE ABOVE SAID APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD AGAINST THE FA CTS AND LAW. 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THE FACTUAL ASPECTS IN ALL IN THE APPEALS ARE SI MILAR HOWEVER A REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99 IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.1999 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 1 47 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S 14 4 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.1.2006 AND THE CIT(A) SHIMLA VIDE ORDER DA TED 27.9.2007 HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT BE NOT LEVIED . IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM WAS CLOSED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND OFFICES WERE SHIFTED FRO M PARWANOO TO H.NO. 294 SECTOR 8 PANCHKULA IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 2-03. THE NOTICES SENT AT THE PARWANOO ADDRESS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FIRM. FURTHER THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CHOWKIDAR IN THE PREMISES WHICH WERE NOT FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE N ON COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT NOTI CE U/S 142(1) DATED 16.9.2005 ALONGWITH THE LETTER WAS SENT THROUGH REG ISTERED POST TO SHRI C.D.SINGLA PARTNER. THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED UP ON THE SERVANT OF THE PARTNER WHO RETURNED THE SAME WRITING ON THE ENVELO PE THAT HIS MASTER WAS NOT AT HOME. THE SECOND LETTER DATED 10.10.2005 WA S SERVED UPON SHRI S.S. BABBAR CA AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE AND ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 20.7.2005 ALONGWITH QUESTI ONNAIRE AND FURTHER 3 NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 16.9.2005 WERE SERVED UPON HIM. NO RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE WAS RECEIVED FORM THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVES. ANOTHER NOTICE AND QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO SERVED ON 24.10.2 005. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID DEFAULTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICES HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED WAS NOT CORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSU ED U/S 142(1) HAD MADE ITSELF LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT. PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/- WAS LEVIED FOR THE ABOVESAID DEFAULT IN AL L THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO 2001-02 AND 2002-03 U /S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT. 6. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT REJECTING THE PLEA OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND NON SER VICE OF NOTICE BEING BASELESS. AS PER CIT(A) THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST AT THE NEW ADDRESS AT PANCHKULA ON 5.5.2006. THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 8.6.2007 FOR APPEARANCE ON 26.7.2007 AND WAS SERVED ON SHRI C.D.SINGLA PARTNE R ON 7.7.2006. ON 26.7.2006 NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE CA SE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.7.2006 AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE AND FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR 18.8.2006. ON 18.8.2006 AGAIN NONE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY REPLY. IN THE ABOVESAID CIR CUMSTANCES THE CIT(A) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE TIME AND AGAIN NOT COMPLI ED WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT MAKING IT LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE WHER E THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OR 143( 2) OR 115 WD (2) OR 4 115WE(2) OR ANY DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION 2A TO SECTION 142. THE SECTION FURTHER LAYS DOWN THAT IN CASE OF DEFAU LT THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN ADDITION TO TAX IF ANY PAYABLE A SUM OF RS. 10 000/- FOR EACH SUCH FAILURE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE BUSINESS INTIMATION WAS SENT TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS . THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION IN THIS REGARD IS FILED BEFORE US. T HE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 18.12.2001 ADDRESSED TO ASSESSING OFFICER PA RWANOO AND LETTER DATED 20.12.2001 ADDRESSED TO THE CIT(A) SURRENDERI NG THE PAN NUMBER IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMMUNICATION TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT PAR WANOO WITH REGARD TO THE INTIMATION OF CLOSURE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME AND THEREAFTER NO TICE WAS ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE AFTER ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT EITHER ON THE ASSESSE E OR THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS REFERRED BY US IN THE PARAS HERE- IN-ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO ONE SET OF NOTICES AND THE CIT( A) REFERRED TO ANOTHER SET OF NOTICES. THE DEFAULT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE A SSESSEE AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICES ISS UED UPTO 24.10.2005 AND THE CIT(A) HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO A NOTICE ISSUED FOR APPEARANCE ON 5.5.2006 AND THEREAFTER. WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ON A DIFFERENT G ROUND OF DEFAULT IS APPEARANCE 8. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 2 71(1) (B) OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY 5 LEVIED U/S 271 (1) (B) OF THE ACT OF RS. 10 000/- I N EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 TH DECEMBER 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6