SAFINAKAUR ANAND, MUMBAI v. ITO 16(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4400/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 440019914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABPA3911H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4400/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant SAFINAKAUR ANAND, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 16(3)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 29-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-07-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 21-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'E' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4400/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) MRS. SAFINA KAUR ANAND INCOME TAX OFFICER - 16(3)( 4) C/O ANAND BEARING INTERNATIONAL MUMBAI 382 VITHAL NIWAS V.P. ROAD VS. MUMBAI 400004 PAN - AABPA 3911 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI MP. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D. SONGATE O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XVII DATED 14.01.2009 CONFIRMING PENALTY OF ` 10 000/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX APPEALS H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDING COULD NOT BE ATTENDED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS CALLE D THE PENALTIES UNDER THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF SMT. ASHWINDER KAUR ANAND SMT. RAWEL KAUR ANAND SMT. GURLEEN KAUR ANA ND AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING T HE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE A.O. HAS ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES WHICH WERE NOT COMPLIED INITIALLY BUT ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). HOWEVER FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ON 03.07.2007 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED AND A PENALTY OF ` 10 000/- WAS LEVIED. IT WAS ASSESSEES COUNSELS EX PLANATION THAT HE WAS BUSY IN FILING RETURN AND DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE O F WORK HE COULD NOT APPEAR ON 03.07.2007 AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE ALSO HAS F RACTURED HIS LEG AND ITA NO.4400/MUM/2009 MRS. SAFINA KAUR ANAND 2 COULD NOT IMMEDIATELY RESPOND TO THE A.O. BUT ULTIM ATELY THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN C OMPLETED. THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS AND CONFIRMED TH E PENALTY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE FOUR G ROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SMT. ASHWINDER KAUR ANAND SMT. RAWEL KAUR ANAND SMT. GURLEEN KAUR ANAND AND SHRI RAJINDER SINGH J. ANAND AND IN ALL THE CASES THERE WERE SIMILAR DEFAULTS ON THE SAME DATE FOR TH E SAME REASONS AND THE CIT(A) IN ALL THE OTHER THREE CASES HAVE ACCEPTED T HE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND DELETED THE PENALTY WHEREAS IN THIS CASE HE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE A.O. ON 03.07.2007 AND ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY IMPOSED SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. AS SEEN FROM THE FACT S OF THIS CASE ALONGWITH OTHER CASES REPORTED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL COPIES OF CIT(A)S ORDERS BEING PLACED ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THE SAME AND THE REASONING WAS S AME AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO SAME I.E. 03.07.2007. AS SEEN FRO M THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HE CONSIDERED EXPLANATION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL VI DE PARA 7 AS UNDER: - 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES U/S. 143(2) ON THE SCHEDULED DATE. AFTER TH IS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND APPELLANT DID N OT COMPLY WITH THE PENALTY NOTICES ALSO. THERE WAS TWO OCCASIONS WHEN HEARING FOR PENALTY WAS FIXED AND APPELLANT SHOWS NOT TO COMPLY. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY BOUND TO IMPOSE PENALTY. EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS INDISPOSE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLIANCE BY WRITING A LETTER. AS NO SUCH THING HAS HAPPENED I F IND THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDING TO LAW AND IS UP HELD. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. SIMILAR ORDERS WERE PASSED IN OTHER CASES RELIED UP ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. SURPRISINGLY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PEN ALTY IN THIS CASE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE SAME FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE OTHER GROUP CASES. AS EXPLAINED THERE IS NO INTENTIONAL NON-COM PLIANCE AND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS BUSY WITH PROFESSIONAL WORK IN THE MONT H OF JULY 2007 AND ITA NO.4400/MUM/2009 MRS. SAFINA KAUR ANAND 3 SUBSEQUENTLY HE ALSO FRACTURED HIS LEG. THIS CAN BE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF POSTING ON 03.07.2007 WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED IN OTHER GROUP CASES. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO LEVY PENALTY IN ASSESSEES CASE AS ASSES SEE HAS ATTENDED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS NO I NTENTIONAL DEFAULT ON THAT DATE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE PENALTY IS CANCELLED GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 13 TH AUGUST 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XVII MUMBAI 4. THE CIT XVI MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR E BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI N.P.