M S Spb 87 Hotels Pvt Ltd Delhi v. Acit New Delhi

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Benches G New Delhi Before Shri Nk Saini Accountant Member And Smt Beena A Pillai Judicial Member Ita No 6270 Del 2014 A Y 2008 09 Ita No 6364 Del 2014 A Y 2008 09 Ita No 6365 Del 2014 A Y 2009 10 Spb 87 Hotels Pvt Ltd A 1 Cc Colony Opp Rp Bagh New Delhi Pan Aalcs 7171 E Vs Acit Central Circle 12 New Delhi Ita Nos 6296 6297 6298 Del 2014 A Y 20 06 07 2007 08 And 2008 09 Satya Prakash Bros P Ltd A 1 Cc Colony Opp Rp Bag H New Delhi Pan Aahcs 1210 Q Vs Acit Central Circle 12 New Delhi Ita Nos 6386 6387 6388 6389 Del 2014 A Y 20 07 08 2005 06 2006 07 And 2008 09 Sh Sanjay Gupta New Delhi Pan Aelpg 6586 L Vs Acit Central Circle 1 2 New Delhi Page 2 Of 10 Ita Nos 6299 6300 Del 2014 A Y 2008 09 And 2009 10 Karat 87 Hotels P Ltd New Delhi Pan Aadck 2600 A Vs Acit Central Circle 12 New Delhi Ita Nos 6414 6415 6416 6417 6418 6419 Del 2014 A Y 20 06 07 2007 08 2008 09 Satya Realtors P Ltd New Delhi Pan Aajcs 1332 F Vs Acit Central Circle 12 New Delhi Ita Nos 6420 6421 Del 2014 A Y 2005 06 2006 07 Sh Sushil Gupta H No 11 Block 5 Roop Nagar Delhi 110 007 Pan Agepg 7570 K Vs Acit C Entral Circle 12 New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh Sb Gupta C A Respondent By Sh Ka Uslendra Tiwari Sr D R Date Of Hearing 2 8 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 12 2017 Page 3 Of 10 O R D E R Per Be Nch T He Present Penalty Appeal S Ha Ve Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Passed By Ld Cit A Xxxi The Details Of Which Are As Under S No Ita No Asst Yr Assessee Date Of Impugned Order 1 6270 14 2008 09 Spb 87 Hotels Pvt Ltd 29 08 14 2 6364 14 2008 09 Do 01 09 14 3 6365 14 2009 12 Do 01 09 14 4 629 6 14 2006 7 Satya Prakash Brothers 01 09 14 5 6297 14 2007 08 Do 01 09 14 6 6298 14 2008 09 Do 01 09 14 7 6386 14 2007 08 Sanjay Gupta 01 09 14 8 6387 14 2005 06 Do 01 09 14 9 6388 14 2006 07 Do 01 09 14 10 6389 14 2007 08 Do 01 09 14 11 6299 14 2008 09 Karat 87 Hotels Pvt Ltd 29 08 14 12 6300 14 2009 10 Do 29 08 14 13 6414 14 2006 07 Satya Realtors 01 09 14 14 6415 14 2007 08 Do 01 09 14 15 6416 14 2008 09 Do 01 09 14 16 6417 14 2006 07 Do 01 09 14 17 6418 14 2007 08 Do 01 09 14 Page 4 Of 10 18 6419 14 2008 09 Do 01 09 14 19 6420 14 2005 06 Sushil Gupta 01 09 14 20 6421 14 2006 07 Do 01 09 14 In All The Above Appeals Assessee Has Challenged Initiation Of Penalty Procee Dings Against The Assessee U S 274 R W S 271 1 B And Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs 10 000 Upon The Assessee U S 271 1 B A S Illegal And Unjustified And Has Prayed For Penalty To Be Deleted Which Have Been Confirmed By The Ld Cit A 2 Brief Facts O F The Case Are As Under D Uring The Assessment Proceedings Assessee Had Failed To Comply With Notices Under Section 143 2 142 1 Issued By Ao In The Result Of Which Ld Ao Passed Penalty Orders Under Section 271 1 B Of The A Ct For All The Assessmen T Years Levying Penalty As Under S No Ita No Asst Yr Date Of Notice Non Complied With Penalty Levied 1 6270 14 2008 09 25 09 12 10 000 2 6364 14 2008 09 04 01 13 10 000 3 6365 14 2009 12 04 01 13 10 000 4 6296 14 2006 7 17 09 12 10 000 5 6297 14 2007 08 17 09 12 10 000 6 6298 14 2008 09 17 09 12 10 000 7 6386 14 2007 08 18 09 12 10 000 8 6387 14 2005 06 04 01 13 10 000 9 6388 14 2006 07 04 01 13 10 000 Page 5 Of 10 10 6389 14 2007 08 04 01 13 10 000 11 6299 14 2008 09 04 01 1 3 10 000 12 6300 14 2009 10 04 01 13 10 000 13 6414 14 2006 07 24 09 12 10 000 14 6415 14 2007 08 24 09 12 10 000 15 6416 14 2008 09 24 09 12 10 000 16 6417 14 2006 07 04 01 13 10 000 17 6418 14 2007 08 04 01 13 10 000 18 6419 1 4 2008 09 04 01 13 10 000 19 6420 14 2005 06 21 09 12 10 000 20 6421 14 2006 07 21 09 12 10 000 2 1 It Has Been Submitted By Ld Ar That Mr Satya Prakash Gupta Father Of Assessee Grand Father Of Assesses Principal Officer Of The Companies W As Hospitalised Due To Severe Illness It Has Been Submitted That Under The Circumstances Assessee Could Not Comply With Notices Issued By Ld Ao It Has Been Submitted By Ld Ar That On The Identical Facts Penalty Levied For Non Compliance Of Notice S Issued By Ld Ao In The Case Of Other Family Members Of Assessee And Companies Partnerships Where Shri Satya Prakash Is The Principal Officer Has Been Cancelled By Various Orders Of This T Ribunal 2 2 He Placed Reliance Upon The Decision Passed By This T Ribunal In The Case Of Family Members And Business Concerns Of Shree Satya Prakash Gupta The Details Of Which Are As Under S No Ita Nos Asst Yr Date Of Itat Order 1 Ita No 6248 To 6286 Del 14 Ita No 6287 To 6289 Del 14 Ita 2005 06 To 2007 08 04 11 15 Page 6 Of 10 No 6272 To 6274 D El 14 2 Ita No 6403 06 04 04 Del 2014 2009 10 01 09 17 3 6375 6378 Del 2014 2005 06 07 09 17 4 6569 6570 And 6571 Del 2014 2005 06 To 2007 08 15 09 2017 5 Itano 6422 Del 14 2007 08 24 10 17 6 Ita No 6423 6428 Del 2014 2005 06 To 2008 09 29 11 17 Ld Ar Submitted That In All These Above Referred Appeals On Similar Facts And Circumstances Various Benches Of The Itat Delhi Have Deleted Penalty Levied Under Section 271 1 B Of The A Ct He Further Submitted That All These Assessees Belong To Same Group And Family Concern And Therefore The Circumstances That Prevailed During These Assessment Years Were Similar 2 3 On The Contrary Ld Dr Placed Reliance Upon The Order S Of The Authorities Below 3 W E Have P Erused The Submissions Advanced By Both The Sides In The Light Of The Records Placed Before Us And The Decisions Relied Upon By The Ld Ar Pa Ssed By This T Ribunal O N Perusal Of All The Above Referred To Order S Passed By This T Ribunal It Is Observed That Mr Satya Prakash Gupta Grand Father Of Assesse S And Principal Officer Of The Companies Was Hospitalised For Treatment Of Heart Attack During The Relevant Period And He Was The Principal Officer For All The Companies Partnership Firms This Tribunal Cons Istently Held As Under In All Appeal S Tabulated Above We Think It Page 7 Of 10 Appropriate To Reproduce The Relevant Finding Given In Para 8 Of The Order Dated 4 11 2015 In Ita No 6284 To 6289 6272 To 6274 Del 2014 For The Assessment Years 2005 06 To 2007 08 In Th E Cases Of Smt Chandrawati Gupta Smt Abha Gupta Smt Rajani Gupta Delhi Vs Acit Central Circle 12 New Delhi Which Reads As Under 8 I Have Considered The Submissions Of Both The Parties And Carefully Gone Through The Material Available On The Re Cord In The Present Case It Is Noticed That The Facts Are Identical To The Facts Involved In The Case Of Smt Usha Gupta Vs Acit Supra And Even The Rival Contentions Are Also On The Same Footing As Were In The Said Case In Ita 6368 Del 2014 For The A Y 2007 08 I Have Already Disposed Off The Above Said Referred To Case Of Smt Usha Gupta Vide The Order Of Even Date And The Relevant Findings Have Been Given In Para 9 Of The Said Order Which Read As Under 9 I Have Considered The Submissions Of Bot H The Parties And Carefully Gone Through The Material Available On The Record In The Present Case It Appears That The Ao Levied The Penalty For Non Appearance Of The Assessee On 09 10 2012 For The Said Date Notices Were Issued U S 143 2 142 1 Of The Act The Explanation Of The Assessee Before The Ld Cit A Was That Her Sister In Law Mrs Anju Gupta Was Suffering From Severe Disease And Had To Be Hospitalised On 6 10 2012 Thereafter On The Date Of Hearing I E 9 10 2012 Sh Satya Prakash Gupta He Ad Of The Family And Father In Law Of The Assessee Became Ill And Had To Be Hospitalised Due To Heart Attack In My Opinion There Was A Reasonable Cause For Non Appearance For The Hearing Fixed On 9 10 2012 As Such The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied B Y The Ao U S 271 1 B Of The Act Was Not Justified In The Present Case It Appears That The Ao Levied Penalty For 7 Assessment Years Running From 2005 06 To 2011 12 And The Ld Cit A Deleted The Penalty For The 4 Assessment Years I E The Assessment Yea Rs 2008 09 To 2011 12 Considering The Explanation Of The Assessee As Page 8 Of 10 Plausible However The Same Explanation Was Not Considered As Proper For The Remaining Assessment Years I E Assessment Year 2005 06 To 2007 08 In My Opinion The Stand Taken By The Ld Cit A Was Not Justified Particularly When He Was Satisfied That There Was A Proper And Plausible Explanation For 4 Out Of 7 Assessment Years For Which Penalty Was Levied By The Ao U S 271 1 B Of The Act I Therefore Considering The Totality Of Th E Facts Delete The Penalty Levied By The Ao And Sustained By The Ld Cit A 3 1 So Respectfully Following The Aforesaid Referred To Order We Are Of The Considered Opinion That Ld Cit A Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penal Ties For Other Assessm Ent Years Under Consideration Accordingly We Are Inclined To Delete The Penalty Levied By Ld Ao Under Section 271 1 B Of The A Ct And Confirmed By The Ld Cit A 4 In The Result Appeal S Filed By The Assessee S For The Years Under Consideration Stand Allowed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 28 12 2017 Sd Sd Nk Saini Beena A Pillai Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated The 28 Th De Cember 2017 Page 9 Of 10 Copy Of The Order Forwarded To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit 4 Cit A 5 Dr 6 Guard File By Order Asst Registrar Itat Del Hi Benches New Delhi Mv G Page 10 Of 10 Date 1 Dragon Dictation 2 8 1 2 2017 2 Draft Placed Before Author 2 8 1 2 2017 3 Draft Proposed Placed Before The Second Member 4 Approved Draft Comes To Srps Ps 5 Kept For Pronouncement On 28 12 17 6 File Sent To Bench Clerk 7 Order Uploaded