Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sawarmal Goyal , Delhi vs Assessee on 20 June, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM
ITA No.4314/Del/2013
Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shalini Goyal, Vs. ACIT,
]44, Engineers Enclave, Central Circle-5,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
Delhi.
PAN : AAEPG8998B
ITA No.4315 to 4320/Del/2013
Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2009-10
ITA No.4321 to 4324/Del/2013
Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2007-08
ITA No.4326, 4325 & 4327 to 4332/Del/2013
Assessment Years : 2008-09 , 2009-10 & 2005-06 to 2010-11
Sawarmal Goyal, Vs. ACIT,
]44, Engineers Enclave, Central Circle-5,
Pitampura, New Delhi.
Delhi.
PAN : AAEPG9000C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri Ajay Mittal, CA
Department By : Smt. Shalini Verma, Sr.DR
ITA Nos.4314 to 4332/Del/2013
ORDER
PER BENCH:
This bunch of 19 files involve two assessees in respect of whom penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) in relation to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11.
2. Since common issue is raised in all these appeals, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
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 2 ITA Nos.4314 to 4332/Del/2013 reply was submitted to the effect that all the staff members and the concerned persons were occupied in finalization of books of 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 ` 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 3 ITA Nos.4314 to 4332/Del/2013 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 4 ITA Nos.4314 to 4332/Del/2013 penalty cannot be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order for deletion of this penalty.
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.
7. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 20.06.2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
[C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 20th June, 2014.
dk
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.*
5