Smt. Sudha Biswas, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4821/DEL/2010 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 482120114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ASMPB5546J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4821/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sudha Biswas, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 05-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2011
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 03-11-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.4821 /DEL/10 1/6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4821/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-9 SUDHA BISWAS ITO 15-B POCKET-F WARD-36 (4) MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-II NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAMPB AAMPB AAMPB AAMPB- -- -5546 5546 5546 5546- -- -J JJ J APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHORE B. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)- XVII NEW DELHI DATED 17.6.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) XVII NEW DELHI IS UNJUSTIFIED ARBITRARY PREJUDGED AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICABILITY O THE PR INCIPLES OF MUTUALITY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON ARBITRARY A SSUMPTION OF . I.T.A. NO4821/DEL/10 2/6 THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) N EW DELHI BY NOT APPRECIATING THE INTENTION OF THE LAW. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPOSI NG THE PENALTY OF `.10 000/- AS IMPOSED BY THE LD ITO U/S 272 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS THE MISTAKE IN WRITING CORREC T PAN IS A BONAFIDE HUMAN MISTAKE WITHOUT ANY MALAFIDE INTENTIO N AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT THE PENALTY WAS WRONGLY IMPOSED BY THE LD OFF ICER AND THEREAFTER CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND AGAINST THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CA SE AS ALL THE DIGITS OF THE PAN WERE CORRECTLY WRITTEN EXCEPT THE 2 ND DIGIT WHICH WAS A MINOR CLERICAL WRITING MISTAKE BY THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WHICH OCCURRED DUE TO HASTE AND OVERSIGH T AND A MANUAL HUMAN ERROR. IT IS A BONAFIDE UNINTENTI ONAL AND UN- DELIBERATE MISTAKE AND SEC. 272B(2) ITSELF REQUIRES THA T PENALTY BE IMPOSED ONLY IF PERSON QUOTES WRONG PAN KNOWINGLY O R INTENTIONALLY. 5. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD OFFICER AND CO NFIRMED THEREAFTER WAS AGAINST THE LAW AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE DELETED S NO BENEFIT IS TO AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MENTIONING WRONG/INCORRECT PAN THUS PENALIZING THE ASSESSEE WITHOU T HER MISTAKE IS A VERY HARSH MEASURE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 272B(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED PAN NO.ASMPB5546J WHEREAS THE CORRECT P AN NO. IS AAMPB5546J. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S . I.T.A. NO4821/DEL/10 3/6 272B(2) BY ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DUE TO CL ERICAL MISTAKE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ONE OF TH E DIGITS OF PAN NO. WAS WRONGLY WRITTEN I.E. THE SECOND DIGIT BUT ALL THE OTHER DIGITS ARE CORRECTLY MENTIONED EXCEPT THIS SECOND DIGI T WHICH WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED DUE TO OVERSIGHT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE IMPOSED A PENALTY OF `.10 000/- U/S 27 2B(2) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL BEFORE LD CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FUR THER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S THAT ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS WRONG MENTION OF THE SECOND DIGI T OF THE PAN NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL AND IT WA S A CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT PROVISION S OF SUB SECTION (1) & (2) OF SECTION 272B ARE AS UNDER:- SUB SECTION (1) & (2) OF SECTION 272B: SUB SECTION (1) & (2) OF SECTION 272B: SUB SECTION (1) & (2) OF SECTION 272B: SUB SECTION (1) & (2) OF SECTION 272B: (1) IF A PERSON FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139A THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSONA SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES. (2) IF A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO QUOPTE HIS PERMANEN T ACCOUNT NUMBER IN ANY DOCUMENT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE OF TH E SUB . I.T.A. NO4821/DEL/10 4/6 SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A OR TO INTIMATE SUCH NUMBE R AS REQUIRED BY SUB SECTION 5A) FOR SUB SECTION (5C) OF TH AT SECTION QUOTES OR INTIMATES A NUMBER WHICH IS FALSE AND WHICH HE EITHER KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE FALSE OR DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM OF RUPEES TEN THOUSAND. 7. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272B WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED IMPUGNED PENALTY UNDER SUB SE CTION (2) OF SECTION 272B BUT SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 272B IS A PPLICABLE IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CLAUSE ( C) OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A OR THERE IS VIOLATION BY THE ASSESSEE OF SUB SECTION (5A) OR SUB SECTION (5C) OF SECTION 139A BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED WRONG PAN NUMBER IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AND HENCE THE VIOLATION IF ANY IS REGARDIN G CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE A SSESSEE SHALL QUOTE PAN NUMBER IN ALL HIS RETURNS OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH ANY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED WRONG PAN NUMBER IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE VIOLATION IF ANY IS OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A AND HENCE THE PENALTY IF ANY CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 272B AN D NOT UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 272B. NOW WE EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER ANY PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 27 2B. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB SECTION IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO COM PLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139A THEN THE PENALTY MAY BE IMP OSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF `.10 000/-. AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO QUOTE HER PAN NUMBER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER . THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY MUCH QUOTED THE PAN NUMBER IN THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY HER BUT THE SECOND DIGIT OF HER PAN NUMBER WAS WRONGLY ME NTIONED AS S IN PLACE OF A. HENCE THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NOT MEN TIONING PAN NUMBER . I.T.A. NO4821/DEL/10 5/6 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT MENTIONING OF WRONG PAN NUMBER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS EQUAL TO NOT MENTIONING OF CORRE CT PAN NUMBER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE THERE IS VIOLATION O F CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139A BUT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WRONG PAN NUMBER WAS MENTIONED DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE U/S 272B OF THE ACT IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS A SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKE BY THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ONE OF THE DIGITS OUT OF 10 DIGITS OF PAN NUMBER WAS WRONGLY WRITTEN I.E. SECOND DIGIT AND ALL OTHER NINE DIGITS OF PAN NUMBER ARE CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN ITS ENTIRE TY WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THIS FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE IN MENTIONING THE CORRECT PAN NUMBER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE PENALTY. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 5 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (A.K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 05.1.2011. HMS . I.T.A. NO4821/DEL/10 6/6 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).