M S Gobind Kanda Amp Sons Huf Haryana v. Dcit New Delhi

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Delhi Delhi Delhi Bench Bench Bench Bench C Cc C New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi Before Shri Before Shri Before Shri Before Shri G D Agrawal G D Agrawal G D Agrawal G D Agrawal President President President President And And And And Ms Suchitra Kamble Ms Suchitra Kamble Ms Suchitra Kamble Ms Suchitra Kamble Judicial Member Judicial Member Judicial Member Judicial Member Ita Itaita Ita No Nono No S Ss S 4522 To 4528 Del 2015 4522 To 4528 Del 2015 4522 To 4528 Del 2015 4522 To 4528 Del 2015 Assessment Year Assessment Year Assessment Year Assessment Year S Ss S 2002 2002 2002 2002 03 To 2008 03 To 2008 03 To 2008 03 To 2008 09 0909 09 M S Gobind Kanda Sons M S Gobind Kanda Sons M S Gobind Kanda Sons M S Gobind Kanda Sons Huf Huf Huf Huf H No 21 W H No 21 W H No 21 W H No 21 Ward No 1 Ard No 1 Ard No 1 Ard No 1 Gali Khajanchain Gali Khajanchain Gali Khajanchain Gali Khajanchain Sirsa Sirsa Sirsa Sirsa Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana 125 055 125 055 125 055 125 055 Pan Aadhg 8888 D Pan Aadhg 8888 D Pan Aadhg 8888 D Pan Aadhg 8888 D Vs Vs Vs Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Deputy Commissioner Of Deputy Commissioner Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Income Tax Income Tax Income Tax Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle 15 15 15 15 Cc Cc Cc Cc 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain And Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal Advocates Respondent By Shri Arun Kumar Yadav Senior Dr Date Of Hearing 07 12 2017 07 12 2017 07 12 2017 07 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 26 12 2017 26 12 2017 26 12 2017 26 12 2017 Order Order Order Order Per G D Agrawal Per G D Agrawal Per G D Agrawal Per G D Agrawal President President President President All These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Levy O F Penalty Amounting To 20 000 Under Section 271 1 B Of T He Income Tax Act 1961 2 The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Five Grounds Howeve R They Are All Against The Levy Of Penalty U S 271 1 B Of The Act Amounting To 20 000 3 At The Time Of Hearing Before Us It Is Stated By T He Learned Counsel That The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U S 271 1 B Dated Ita Nos 4522 To 4528 D 2015 2 24 Th June 2013 However In The Penalty Notice There Is No Mention In Respect Of Any Default Committed By The Assessee Thus The Levy Of Penalty On The Basis Of Such Penalty Notice Is Void And Bad In Law He Also Referred To The Penalty Order And Pointed Out T Hat Even In The Penalty Order The Assessing Officer Has Not Mentioned W Hich Particular Notice Was Not Attended By The Assessee Th Ere Is Only A General Remark That Different Notices Issued By His Of Fice From Time To Time Remained Uncomplied With That In The Penalty Proceedings Unless The Default Is Specified The Assessee Cannot Be Pe Nalized In Respect Of Such Alleged Default He Also Stated That The Issue Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decisio N Of Itat In Other Appeals Of The Same Group I E In The Case Of M M Buildcon Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit Vide Ita Nos 4518 To 4521 Del 2015 4 Learned Senior Dr On The Other Hand Relied Upo N The Orders Of Authorities Below And He Stated That The Assessee Is A Ha Bitual Defaulter And Has Made No Compliance During The Assessm Ent Proceedings Which Resulted In The Assessment U S 144 Th Erefore The Levy Of Penalty U S 271 1 B Is Fully Justified He Also Stated That The Meager Penalty Of 20 000 Is Levied Which Should Be Sustained 5 We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both The Sides And Perused The Material Placed Before Us The Copy Of The Penalty Notice Is Placed At Page 6 Of The Assessees Paper Book The Relevant Portion Of Which Reads As Under Please Refer To Penalty Proceedings Referred To Abo Ve In This Connection You Are Hereby Given An Opportunity To File Your Explanation Alongwith Evidence Your Case Is Fi Xed For Hearing On 04 07 2013 Ita Nos 4522 To 4528 D 2015 3 Please Note In Case Of Non Compliance The Said Penal Ty Proceedings Will Be Decided On Merits 6 From The Above It Is Evident That The Assessing Offi Cer Has Not Specified The Default I E The Specific Notice Which According To Him Remained Uncomplied With By The Assessee The Relevan T Portion Of The Penalty Order Reads As Under 2 During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Failed To Attend The Proceedings As And When It Was Required Through Different Notices Issued By This O Ffice From Time To Time Whatever The Submission Filed By T He Assessee Were Filed In Dak And The Assessee Preferred In Not Attending The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao Accordingly Proceedings U S 271 1 B Of The Act Wer E Initiated While Finalizing The Assessment On 21 03 2013 As Per The Note Sheet Failed To Attend The Proceedings As Was Required By This Office On 30 11 2012 28 12 2012 And Whatever Remaining Compliance Was Made By The Assessee Was Made Through Dak 7 Thus Even In The Penalty Order The Observation O F The Assessing Officer Is General In Nature In Our Opinion Befor E The Penalty Can Be Levied Upon The Assessee U S 271 1 B It Is Essential On The Part Of The Assessing Officer To Specify The Particular Notice Which According To The Assessing Officer Remained Uncomplied With The A Ssessing Officer Should Clearly Mention The Date Of Issue Of N Otice The Date Of Service Of The Notice And The Date On Which Or By Wh Ich The Assessee Was Supposed To Comply With The Said Notice In The C Ase Under Consideration Before Us No Such Particulars Are Given On These Facts We Are Of The Opinion That The Penalty Order Is Vagu E And The Same Cannot Be Sustained We Also Observe That On Merits Un Der Similar Circumstances The Itat Has Already Cancelled The Pena Lty In The Case Of M M Buildcon Pvt Ltd In Ita Nos 4518 To 4521 De L 2015 Order Dated 6 Th November 2017 In View Of The Above We Do Not F Ind It A Fit Ita Nos 4522 To 4528 D 2015 4 Case For Confirming The Penalty Levied U S 271 1 B Of The Act The Same Is Cancelled In The Case Of All The Above Years 8 In The Result All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are All Owed Decision Pronounced In The Open Court On 26 12 2017 Sd Sd Suchitr Suchitr Suchitr Suchitr A Kamble A Kamble A Kamble A Kamble G D Agrawal G D Agrawal G D Agrawal G D Agrawal Judicial Member Judicial Member Judicial Member Judicial Member President President President President Vk Copy Forwarded To 1 Appellant M S Gobind Kanda Sons Huf M S Gobind Kanda Sons Huf M S Gobind Kanda Sons Huf M S Gobind Kanda Sons Huf H No 21 Ward No 1 Gali Khajanchain H No 21 Ward No 1 Gali Khajanchain H No 21 Ward No 1 Gali Khajanchain H No 21 Ward No 1 Gali Khajanchain Sirsa Haryana Sirsa Haryana Sirsa Haryana Sirsa Haryana 125 055 125 055 125 055 125 055 2 Respondent Dep Dep Dep Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Uty Commissioner Of Income Tax Uty Commissioner Of Income Tax Uty Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle 15 Cc 15 Cc 15 Cc 15 Cc 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi 14 New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi New Delhi 3 Cit 4 Cit A 5 Dr Itat Assistant Registrar