Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Vineet Chouhan, Bhopal vs Acit (Central) Ii, Bhopal on 23 November, 2016
Vineet Chouhan and others 1 ITA 1061 of 2016 and others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN INDORE BENCH, INDORE Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon'ble Judicial Member and Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'ble Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1061 to 1181/Ind/2016 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2010-11 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2009-10 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2011-12 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2010-11 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2010-11 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2010-11 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15 A.Ys. - 2008-09 to 2014-15
1. Vineet Chouhan, Bhopal
2. Anil Khilwani, Bhopal
3. Sainath Colonisers, Bhopal
4. Virsha Infrastructure, Bhopal
5. Rajbala Gupta, Bhopal
6. Bhupendra Vishwakarma, Bhopal
7. CNP Constructions, Bhopal
8. Yogita Vishwakarma, Bhopal
9. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal
10. Om Builders, Bhopal
11. Sainath Dwellings P. Ltd. , Bhopal
12. Sainath Promoters & Developers, Bhopal
13. Sonal Khilwani, Bhopal
14. Rajkumar Khilwani, Bhopal
15. Sainath Colonisers (P) Ltd., Bhopal
16. Signature Builders, Bhopal Vineet Chouhan and others 2 ITA 1061 of 2016 and others
17. Vipin Chouhan, Bhopal
18. Vivek Chouhan, Bhopal
19. Om Construction, Bhopal Appellants Vs. ACIT(Central)-II, Bhopal Respondent Assessees by Shri S.S. Deshpande Respondent by Shri Mohd. Javed, DR Date of hearing 23.11.2016 Date of pronouncement 23.11.2016 Per Bench All these appeals have been filed by different assessees against different orders of the learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal dated 29.7.2016 for the above assessment years.
2. In all these appeals, the sole issue involved is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act at Rs.10,000/- in each assessment year in the cases of all these assessees.
3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that in all these appeals, the facts and the issue involved are identical and, therefore, he will be arguing the facts in the case of Vineet Chouhan. He submitted that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 30.9.2015 asking the assessee to furnish the details upto 29.10.2015 and in some cases upto Vineet Chouhan and others 3 ITA 1061 of 2016 and others 30.10.2015. The Counsel of the group, Shri Rajendra Sharma personally appeared and verbally requested a time for filing the details. Since, in more than forty cases, the stereotype questionnaires were issued, it required time to file the necessary details as per questionnaire. He further submitted that voluminous loose papers were also required to be scrutinized and as such, the time was sought to submit the reply to the questionnaire. Subsequently, during the course of the assessment proceedings, all the necessary details were filed and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the I.T. Act. In most of the cases, the common orders were passed and assessments have been framed on the basis of information submitted from time to time. Ld. AR submitted that Shri Rajendra Sharma, Counsel has attended the office on the date fixed and verbally requested for time for filing the details. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that Shri Rajendra Sharma did not attend on the specified date and as such, there is no question of adjournment. The ld. AR submitted that CA Shri Rajendra Sharma has appeared and the concerned officer was on leave, therefore, the reply could not be filed but assessees had do filed reply and after filing the reply, all the assessments have been done u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, assessees had reasonable cause for not filing the necessary details on first day of hearing, therefore, penalty may be deleted. The Vineet Chouhan and others 4 ITA 1061 of 2016 and others Tribunal has cancelled the penalty on the similar reasonable cause, therefore, penalty may be deleted and he relied upon the various decisions.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
5. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find from the assessment orders in all these group appeals that the assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-appearance on 30.10.2015. The assessees' counsel appeared on 29.10.2015 and informed the Assessing Officer that there are large numbers of cases involved in this group of appeals, therefore, he sought time to file the reply. The Assessing Officer had verbally agreed but assessees' counsel's presence was not marked. The Counsel again appeared on 24.11.2015 and it was informed by the office that Assessing Officer is on leave and he will join on Monday 30.11.2015 and Counsel of the assessees again appeared in the office on 30.11.2015 and complied with the notices stating the above facts. The learned Counsel for the assessees had also replied to the ACIT that CA Shri Rajendra Sharma had appeared on 24.11.2015 and informed the Assessing Officer accordingly. We are of the view that assessees had reasonable cause for Vineet Chouhan and others 5 ITA 1061 of 2016 and others non-appearance on that day. Therefore, there is no justification for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Secondly, in this matter, the assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, no penalty can be levied if the assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) and there is subsequent compliances in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliances and default committed earlier were ignored. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was deleted by various Tribunals. In the case of Akhil Bhartiya Parthmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s 142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. Thus, we set aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities and delete the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in these appeals.
6. In result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(O.P MEENA) (D.T. GARASIA)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23.11.2016