Rekha Rani, Uttar Pradesh vs Assessee

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi dated 20th September, 2013.

2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is regarding validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to `50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

3. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee is being decided ex parte 2 ITA-6131/Del/2013

qua the assessee appellant on merits after hearing the arguments of learned DR.

4. Learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on five different dates and the assessee failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed penalty of `10,000/- for each default totaling to `50,000/-. He submitted that the assessee has no reasonable cause for not appearing on the date of hearing fixed before the Assessing Officer. He relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).

5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). we find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, we find that the default is same and, therefore, penalty of `10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under Section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee. The provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. Any other view taken shall lead to the imposition of penalty for any number of times (without limits) for the same default of not appearing in response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. This does not seem to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. In case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the 3 ITA-6131/Del/2013

remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to `10,000/- as against `50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Decision pronounced in the open Court on 6th May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) RAO) (G.C. (G.C. GUPTA) GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

VK.

Copy forwarded to: -

1. Appellant : Smt. Rekha Rani, Teacher Colony, Opp. Gandhi Nagar Transformer, Deoband (Saharanpur), U.P.

2. Respondent : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-

Circle-8, New Delhi.

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR, ITAT

Assistant Registrar