M/s. Pathak Enterprises ,, Shahjahanpur v. Income Tax Officer -II,, Shahjahanpur

ITA 230/LKW/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23023714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAHFP5491K
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 230/LKW/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Pathak Enterprises ,, Shahjahanpur
Respondent Income Tax Officer -II,, Shahjahanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 11-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 10-09-2014
Next Hearing Date 10-09-2014
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.230/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER - II SHAHJAHANPUR. VS. M/S PATHAK ENTERPRISES KACHHA KATRA SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN:AAHFP5491K (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. DEY D.R. RESPONDENT BY 10/09/2014 DATE OF HEARING 11 /11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BAREILLY DATED 25 TH FEBRUARY 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.10 000/ - U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) AND LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE DEFAULT WAS NOT DELIBERATE BUT BECAUSE OF SITUATION BEYOND CONTR OL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. BUT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING SUCH SITUATION WHICH WAS 2 BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULTED IN NON COMPLIANCE. WE FIND THAT A NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 12/2/2008 WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON 18/02/2008 ASKING THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THEREAFTER AGAIN A LETTER DATED 05/11/2008 EXPLAINING SITUATION WAS ISSUED FIXING THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE ON 11/11/2008. THIS WAS SERVED ON 10/11/2008 BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THIS DATE ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 144 FIXING THE DATE ON 08/12/2008 BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TILL 29/12/2008 AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THREE NOTICES IN A ROW AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH NON COMPLIANCE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /11 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR