Neeraj Kumar v ITO - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6536 (Del-Trib) ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. Neeraj Kumar v. ITO I.T.A. Nos. 6576 & 6577/Del/2019 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 3 October, 2022 Assessee by: Anil Jain, Advocate Revenue by: Jeetendra Chand, Sr. D.R. ORDER *C.N. Prasad, J.M.* These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-17, New Delhi dated 9-4-2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. LearnedCounsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is an individual and no return of income was filed as his income was below the taxable limit. The case was re-opened on the basis of AIR information for trading in Multi commodity exchange in which he has suffered losses. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee was staying with his family at WZ-481, Naraina Village, New Delhi on rent in the house owned by Late Sh. Ravinder Kumar from the year January 2003 to January 2011. The confirmation from the wife of the landlord is enclosed dated 22-4-2019. Learned Counsel submits that due to heavy losses in the commodity market he shifted his family and residence to his home town at 275, Village-Satheri, Tehsil and Post Khathuli, Distt., Muzaffarnagar-251201 U.P. in January 2011 and since than he is staying there only. The copy of his Aadhar Card is enclosed. The assessment was reopened under section 148 on 14-3-2014 and notices were sent to Naraina Address. No notice under section 148 and 142(1) was received by the assessee as he had shifted from Delhi in the year 2011 to Khatuli and assessment was completed under section 144 vide Order, dated 5-3-2015. No notice for the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) was also received. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs.70000 being defaults made for non compliance of notices on seven occasion @ Rs.10000 each vide Order, dated 17-9-2015. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee came to know about the assessment and the demand on being contacted by TRO-17, in first week of October 2018, then he immediately contacted him and assessing officer and obtained certified copies of all orders and filed the appeals on 25-10-2018. Learned Counsel submits that before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) besides the submissions an affidavit affirming all the facts on oath was also filed but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the same. The quantum appeals are pending with Commissioner (Appeals) and penalty appeals under section 271(1)(b) has been rejected for which the present appeals are filed. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee applied for the change of address in the PAN data on 3-5-2019. The assessing officer imposed penalty for 7 defaults which includes the default for non-compliance of notice under section 148 also which is not covered in section 271(1)(b). Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submits that since the assessee has not received any notice under section 148 or 142(1) of the Act there is no justification in levying the penalty by the assessing officer and confirming by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6536 (Del-Trib)

ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M.

Neeraj Kumar v. ITO

I.T.A. Nos. 6576 & 6577/Del/2019

A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13

3 October, 2022

Assessee by: Anil Jain, Advocate

Revenue by: Jeetendra Chand, Sr. D.R.

ORDER

C.N. Prasad, J.M.

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-17, New Delhi dated 9-4-2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

2. LearnedCounsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is an individual and no return of income was filed as his income was below the taxable limit. The case was re-opened on the basis of AIR information for trading in Multi commodity exchange in which he has suffered losses. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee was staying with his family at WZ-481, Naraina Village, New Delhi on rent in the house owned by Late Sh. Ravinder Kumar from the year January 2003 to January 2011. The confirmation from the wife of the landlord is enclosed dated 22-4-2019. Learned Counsel submits that due to heavy losses in the commodity market he shifted his family and residence to his home town at 275, Village-Satheri, Tehsil and Post Khathuli, Distt., Muzaffarnagar-251201 U.P. in January 2011 and since than he is staying there only. The copy of his Aadhar Card is enclosed. The assessment was reopened under section 148 on 14-3-2014 and notices were sent to Naraina Address. No notice under section 148 and 142(1) was received by the assessee as he had shifted from Delhi in the year 2011 to Khatuli and assessment was completed under section 144 vide Order, dated 5-3-2015. No notice for the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) was also received. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs.70000 being defaults made for non compliance of notices on seven occasion @ Rs.10000 each vide Order, dated 17-9-2015. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee came to know about the assessment and the demand on being contacted by TRO-17, in first week of October 2018, then he immediately contacted him and assessing officer and obtained certified copies of all orders and filed the appeals on 25-10-2018. Learned Counsel submits that before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) besides the submissions an affidavit affirming all the facts on oath was also filed but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the same. The quantum appeals are pending with Commissioner (Appeals) and penalty appeals under section 271(1)(b) has been rejected for which the present appeals are filed. Learned Counsel submits that the assessee applied for the change of address in the PAN data on 3-5-2019. The assessing officer imposed penalty for 7 defaults which includes the default for non-compliance of notice under section 148 also which is not covered in section 271(1)(b). Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submits that since the assessee has not received any notice under section 148 or 142(1) of the Act there is no justification in levying the penalty by the assessing officer and confirming by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).