M/s. Talbros Engineering Ltd., Faridabad v. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 270/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 27020114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCT0247L
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 270/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Talbros Engineering Ltd., Faridabad
Respondent ACIT, Faridabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 17-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 17-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 17-03-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2010
Judgment Text
ITA NO. 270/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOMETAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 270/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S TALBROS ENGINEERING LTD. VS. ACIT RANGE -I 74-75 SECTOR-6 FARIDABAD FARIDABAD [PAN: AABCT0247L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.K. LAL SR. DR O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 23.11.2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IM POSING A PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/- 3. IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS ORIGINALLY IMPOSED PENAL TY OF RS. 5000/- U/S 271(1)(B) WHICH WAS ENHANCED TO RS. 10 000/- BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE MATTER HAD TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORD ER DATED 12.10.2009 IN ITA NO. 3542/D/09 HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF T HE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO COMPLY ITA NO. 270/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 2 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE IT ACT . ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER WAS LOOKED INTO BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD IN TER-ALIA PLEADED BEFORE HIM THAT:- IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT OUR OTHER CONTEN TION REMAINS THE SAME VIZ. THE SAID DATE COULD NOT BE ATTENDED FOR THE REASON THAT MR. DUTTA WHO WAS FINANCE MANAGER AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TA X MATTER WAS OCCUPIED IN THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 22.10.2007. EVIDENCE OF THE SAID MARRIAGE IS ENCLOSED. BECAUSE OF THE SA ID MARRIAGE ON 22.10.2007 COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE ON 23.10.2 007. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THERE WAS IN ANY CASE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 27 3B AND THEREFORE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED MAY PLEASE BE DELETE D. 4. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOW VAINLY STARTED THE PLEA THAT DEFAULT WAS COMMITTED DUE TO THE MARRIAGE OF THE DA UGHTER OF AUTHORIZED PERSON. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHICH ON MERITS AND FACTS CAN ALSO BE DISPROVED BUT IS NOT INDULGED IN. LD. CIT(A) WENT ON TO REJEC T THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271( 1)(B) AND AGAIN REAFFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 10 000/-. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) SH ALL NOT BE IMPOSED IF THE ITA NO. 270/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 3 ASSESSEE CAN SHOW THAT THERE WAS CAUSE FOR NON-COMP LIANCE IN THIS REGARD. THE REASONABLE CAUSE ATTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE HERE IS MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF AUTHORISED PERSON. LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THIS CONTE NTION BY OBSERVING THAT THIS CONTENTION CAN BE DISPROVED BUT IS NOT INDULGED IN . WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LD. CIT(A) CAN REJECT THE CONTENTION WITHOUT D EALING WITH IT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE REASON SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E FALLS WITHIN THE REALM OF REASONABLE CAUSE OF SECTION 271(1)(B). MOREOVER WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMI NAL PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIO US OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WIL L NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHO ULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCR ETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL T HE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED THE AUTHORITY C OMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY WHE N THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE B REACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE ITA NO. 270/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 4 BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN TH E MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/03/2010 U PON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN) [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 17/03/ 2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. D R ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES