Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Baldev Singh, Chandigarh vs Ito, W-3(2), Chandigarh on 6 August, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH'A', CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.292/Chd/2018
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Shri Baldev Singh Vs. The I TO,
SCF-1, Sector-20C Ward 3(2)
Chandigarh Chandigarh
PAN No. AHVPB1502E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Shri . Tej Mohan si ngh
Respondent By : Smt. Chandrakanta
Date of hearing : 25/07/2018
Date of Pr onouncement : 06/08/2018
ORDER
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dt. 12/01/2018.
2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds;
1. That eth order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1 has erred in law as well as on facts in levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) without correctly appreciating the fact that the non attendance of assessment proceedings was due to some reasonable circumstances.
3. Brief facts of the case are that penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was levied under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply the notices issued under section 142(1) along with questionnaires dt. 17/06/2016, 14/07/2016, 29/07/2016.
4. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that "simply ignoring the notice of the Department, with the expectation that it is bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to keep on posting the case for hearing several times before, the assessee chose to comply, is reprehensible. When there is continuous non- compliance, the Assessing Officer cannot presume on behalf of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The assessee's arguments that notices were received late from the Department or the assessee 2 was a senior citizen and was almost 60 years of age in 2016 and his income tax matters are being looked after by his nephew and due to this the assessee was not able to attend the assessment proceedings due to any other problem shows casual approach of the assessee and cannot be ignored".
5. Before us, Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a person aged about 60 and his matters are looked after by his nephew and hence was not able to attend the assessment proceedings. It was argued that it is not clear from the penalty order as to which date of default of non attendance the penalty was levied.
6. Ld. DR argued that non compliance to the notice issued shows disregard of the assessee for the statutory notices issued and therefore it is a fit case for levy of penalty and the reasons given by the Ld. AR cannot be accepted as valid and reasonable. She argued that there was non-compliance of the notices issued on 14/07/2016 and 29/07/2016 which makes it a fit case for levy of penalty.
7. We have heard both the parties and we find that the date of default for which penalty been levied has not been mentioned. The Assessing Officer ought to have made it clear as to which the penalty is being levied. In the absence of such crucial component and when the order is silent on the date of default for which the penalty was levied, we hold that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot survive.
8. In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 06/08/2018 AG Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR