Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Reeta Patel, Bareilly vs Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bareilly on 11 January, 2018
I.T.A. No.598/Lkw/2016
1
Assessment year:2007-08
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.598/Lkw/2016
Assessment year:2007-08
Smt. Reeta Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3),
W/o Shri Ram Pal Kannojia, Bareilly.
A-62, Ekta Nagar,
Bareilly.
PAN:AMRPP 7470 Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, D. R.
Date of hearing 08/01/2018
Date of pronouncement 11/01/2018
ORDER
PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 01/08/2016.
2. The only grievance raised by the assessee is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has confirmed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act.
3. At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that Hon'ble Tribunal in the quantum proceedings in I.T.A. No.597/Lkw/2016 has set aside the appeal to the office of the Assessing Officer and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed.
I.T.A. No.598/Lkw/2016 2 Assessment year:2007-08
4. Learned D. R., on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the penalty was imposed for not complying with the notices u/s 142(1) on various dates.
5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that assessee during the assessment proceedings did not comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1) on various dates which learned CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have noted in their order and therefore, the authorities below have imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. However, we find that finally the assessee did appear before the assessment proceedings and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter, the matter travelled upto Tribunal, which vide order dated 30/01/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. Therefore, we do not see any reason to uphold the order of CIT(A). We reverse the same and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/01/2018) Sd/. Sd/.
(PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR )
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:11/01/2018
*Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar