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
|
