Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Shalini Goyal, New Delhi vs Assessee on 24 December, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH 'G' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
1-7. ITA Nos.4333 to 4339/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 to 2010-11)
8-13. ITA Nos.4340 to 4345/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 to 2009-10)
Shri Salek Chand Garg, vs. ACIT, CC-5,
DU - 175, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.
New Delhi - 110 088.
(PAN : AEXPG2248H)
14-19. ITA Nos.4346 to 4351/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 to 2009-10)
20-24. ITA Nos.4352 to 4356/Del./2013
(ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 to 2008-09)
Ms. Shalini Goyal, vs. ACIT, CC-5,
44, Engineers Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.
Delhi - 110 034.
(PAN : AAEPG8998B)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Mittal, Advocate
REVENUE BY : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
ORDER
PER BENCH :
2 ITA No.4333/Del./2013 & 23 others
In all these 24 appeals, the common issue involved is regarding confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the CIT (A) which was levied by the Assessing Officer.
2. At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR submitted that this issue has already been decided in a group case by the ITAT in the case of Shalini Goyal vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5, New Delhi in ITA No.4314/Del./2013 & Ors. by order dated 20.06.2014. He has also submitted a copy of the aforesaid order of the ITAT. He pleaded that facts and circumstances are same, hence, in these cases also, penalty deserves to be deleted. Ld. DR was also heard on this issue.
3. We have heard both the sides. After hearing both the sides, we find that the circumstances in which the penalty was levied in the case of the assessees are the same as was in the aforesaid case of Shalini Goyal which was decided by the ITAT on 20.06.2014. The relevant paras of the said ITAT order read as under :-
"3. On a representative basis, we are taking up the appeal in the case of Shalini Goyal for the Assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.4314/Del/2013. The facts apropos this appeal are that the assessee was subjected to search and seizure proceedings along with other individuals and group concerns on 7.01.2010. Notice u/s 153A was issued requesting to file the return for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 08.11.2010. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 16.12.2010 calling for certain information. No return/reply was submitted by the assessee. On 16.09.2011, a notice u/s 271(1)(b) was issued requiring the assessee to show reasons as to why penalty be not imposed under this section. A reply was submitted to the effect that all the staff members and the concerned persons were occupied in finalization of books of 3 ITA No.4333/Del./2013 & 23 others account for the Financial year 2010-11 as income tax return for AY 2011-12 was to be filed on 30.09.2011. The assessee further stated that the delay on the part of the assessee in filing the return/documents was unintentional. The assessee further requested for grant of time of 15/20 days for doing the needful. Not convinced with the assessee's submissions, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) amounting to Rs.10,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed from the impugned order that the assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that adjournments were requested on the ground that search and seizure operation had taken place and it was not possible to furnish the necessary details as all the documents and computer hard discs etc. were seized/impounded at the time of search operations. The assessee further submitted that several requests were made to the AO to release certain documents, but to no avail. These findings have not been controverted by the ld. DR with any cogent evidence. From the above recording of the factual position obtaining in this case, it is crystal clear that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in not complying with the directions of the AO which led to the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
5. Here, it is relevant to mention that the provisions of the section 271(1)(b) of the Act imposing penalty are not absolute. Section 273B provides that where the assessee shows a reasonable cause for the default which led to the imposition of penalty, in such cases, the penalty can be deleted. It is noticed that section 271(1)(b) of the Act is duly covered within the ambit of section 273B. In our considered opinion, the cause pleaded by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) which led to the commission of default u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act constituted a reasonable cause. The delay in filing the information/documents etc. called for by the AO would be naturally delayed when a person has been subjected to search and documents are with the Department. As the assessee proved a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the directions of the AO which culminated into the imposition of the instant penalty, we are of the considered opinion that this penalty cannot be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order for deletion of this penalty.4 ITA No.4333/Del./2013 & 23 others
6. The facts and circumstances in all other cases are admittedly, mutatis mutandis similar to those of Shalini Goyal, which has been discussed, supra. Following the view taken hereinabove, we order for the deletion of the penalty in other cases as well."
Since the facts and circumstances remain the same in these cases, therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of ITAT, respectfully following the same, we allow all these 24 appeals filed by the assessees.
4. In the result, all the 24 appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of December, 2014.
Sd/- sd/-
(I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated the 24th day of December, 2014
TS
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.