Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Kolkata v. Dcit Cc Xxvii Kolkata Kolkata

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal D Bench Kolkata Before Shri N V Vasudevan Jm Dr A L Saini Am Ita Nos 866 To 872 Kol 2016 Assessment Years 2006 07 To 2012 13 Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Nivedita Apartment 135 N S C Bose Road Kolkata 700 103 Vs Dcit Cc Xxvii Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Purva 110 Shanti Palli E M By Pass Kolkata 700 107 Pan Gir No Afqpp 0503 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Avijit Dey Advocate Respondent By Shri A K Tiwari Cit Date Of Hearing 29 11 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 06 12 2017 O R D E R Per Bench These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006 07 To 2012 13 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 21 Kolkata In Appeal No 418 Dcit Cc 4 3 Kol Cit A 21 Kol 14 15 Dated 17 02 2016 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs 20 000 U S 271 1 B Of The Income Tax Act 1961 2 These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee Different Assessment Years Identical Issues Are Involved Therefore These Have Clubbed And Heard Together And A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience And Brevity 3 Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No 866 Kol 2016 Assessment Year 2006 07 Is Taken As A Lead Case 4 The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Lead Case In Ita No 866 Kol 2016 Are As Under 1 For That On The Facts And In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit A Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs 20 000 Imposed By The Ao U S 271 1 B Of The Act 2 For That The Ld Cit A Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs 20 000 Imposed U S 271 1 B Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Ita Nos 866 To 872 Kol 2016 Assessment Years 2006 07 To 2012 13 Page 2 3 That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Alter Or Delete All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal 5 The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That A Search And Seizure Operation U S 132 1 Of The I T Act 1961 Was Conducted In The Paul Group On 17 01 2012 And On Subsequent Dates At Different Residential Office And Factory Premises At Dakshin Dinajpur And Kolkata The Assessee Being One Of The Key Persons Of Paul Group Had Been Covered Under The Search And Seizure Operations During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ao Issued Statutory Notices U S 142 1 On Various Dates Including On 15 05 2013 And On 28 05 2013 Requesting To Furnish Reply Of The Queries With Supporting Documents On 28 05 2013 05 06 2013 Respectively However On None Of The Above Dates Neither The Assessee Represented Before The Ao Personally Nor Through The Authorized Representative Or Filed Any Letter For Adjournment Therefore The Ao Treated These Defaults As Non Compliance Of Statutory Notices Accordingly The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs 20 000 On Two Instances Of Default In Respect Of Notices Dated On 15 05 2013 And On 28 05 2013 6 Aggrieved The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit A Who Has Confirmed The Penalty U S 271 1 B Of The I T Act 1961 At Rs 20 000 7 During The Penalty Proceedings The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Assailing The Imposition Of Penalty Submitted That The Ao Had Imposed Penalty In An Arbitrary Manner And Submitted That The Assessee Had No Intention To Defy Or Disobey The Statutory Notices Served On Him During The Pendency Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld Counsel Also Drew Our Attention To The Fact That Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul The Assessee Who Was Looking The Taxation Matter Of The Group Company His Elder Brother Was Very Critical Due To Severe Illness It Was Also Submitted By The Ld Counsel That The Assessee Was Very Busy In Looking After His Brothers Treatment During The Above Two Defaults I E On 15 05 2013 And On 28 05 2013 In View Of This It Was Pleaded By Ld Counsel That There Was No Wisdom In The Assessment Order In Respect Of Alleged Non Compliance The Ld Counsel Also Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of The Co Ordinate Bench Of The Itat In The Case Of Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs Acit 2008 5 Dtr Del Trib 429 In Which It Was Held That Where An Order Under Section 143 3 Has Been Issued And Not Under Section 144 Of The Act The Same Implies That The Subsequent Compliance Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Ita Nos 866 To 872 Kol 2016 Assessment Years 2006 07 To 2012 13 Page 3 In The Assessment Proceedings Is Considered As Good Compliance And Defaults Earlier Committed Were Ignored By The Ao 8 The Ld Dr Submitted That The Medical Certificate For Illness Of Assessees Brother Was Not Produced To The Ao To Justify That There Was Reason For Not Responding On The Notices U S 142 1 Of The I T Act The Ld Dr Also Contended That The Assessee In The Instant Case Was Intentionally Delaying The Proceedings To Take The Assessee At The Fag End In Order To Divert The Attention Of The Ao 9 We Have Heard The Rival Submissions And Perused The Material On Record We Find That The Instant Appeal Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Co Ordinate Bench Of Itat Delhi In The Case Of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs Acit 5 Dtr 429 Delhi Tribunal Wherein The Coordinate Bench In Paras 2 4 And 2 5 Has Held As Under 2 4 Coming To The Issue Of Recording Of Satisfaction It May Be Mentioned That Mere Initiation Of Penalty Does Not Amount To Satisfaction As Held By Honble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd 2001 167 Ctr Del 321 2000 246 Itr 568 Del In Absence Of Recording Of The Satisfaction In The Assessment Order Mere Initiation Of Penalty Will Not Confer Jurisdiction On The Ao To Levy The Penalty 2 5 We Also Find That Finally The Order Was Passed Under S 143 3 And Not Under S 144 Of The Act This Means That Subsequent Compliance In The Assessment Proceedings Was Considered As Good Compliance And The Defaults Committed Earlier Were Ignored By The Ao Therefore In Such Circumstances There Could Have Been No Reason To Come To The Conclusion That The Default Was Wilful 10 As The Facts Of This Case Are Identical We Hold That The Imposition Of Penalty U S 271 1 B Of The Act Was Patently Wrong Specially In View Of The Fact That The Impugned Assessment Order Has Been Passed U S 143 3 While Setting Aside The Impugned Order We Direct The Assessing Officer To Delete The Penalty 11 In The Result The Appeals Of The Assessee In Ita Nos 866 To 872 Kol 2016 Are Allowed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On This 06 12 2017 Sd N V Vasudevan Sd Dr A L Saini Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata Dated 06 12 2017 Rs Sps Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Ita Nos 866 To 872 Kol 2016 Assessment Years 2006 07 To 2012 13 Page 4 Copy Of The Order Forwarded To True Copy By Order Senior Private Secretary Head Of Office D D O I T A T Kolkata Benches Kolkata 1 The Appellant Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul 2 The Respondent Dcit Cc Xxvii Kolkata 3 The Cit A Kolkata 4 Cit 5 Dr Itat Kolkata 6 Guard File