9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1039 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non compliance to notice 142(1) - Held that - The instant case does not fall in the arena of deliberate or wilful defiance by not appearing before the AO on the specified date. Nothing has been brought on record by the lower Authorities to show that the instant case is an attempt of deliberate defiance on the part of the assessee. In fact, the assessment having been completed u/s 143(3) as the assessee appeared from time to time and filed written submission and details in compliance to said notice 142(1), means that not only the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance, but the very charge of non-compliance to the statutory notices was itself conceded. It is seen that ld CIT (A) has rejected the submission of the assessee on mere presumptions and surmises, without support of any specific documentary evidence and legal precedent. See Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ACIT 2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G It is evident that date of service of the statutory notice in question issued u/s 142(1), has not been established by the ld DR. Its date of service is also not mentioned in the penalty order and assessment order passed by the AO and the appellate order being passed by the CIT (A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice dated 01/06/2012 under section 142(1) by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2010-11. Analysis: 1. The penalty of ?10,000 was imposed for non-compliance of the notice dated 01/06/2012 under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite attending a subsequent hearing and filing a written reply, the requisite documents/information were not provided by the assessee. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty, stating that the notice was issued after the filing of the return, and the appellant had access to the relevant documents but deliberately did not comply with the notice. 3. The assessee argued against the penalty, citing legal precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The appellant contended that the penalty was wrongly confirmed by the CIT (A). 4. The dispute was between the AR for the assessee and the Department Representative, with the latter defending the penalty order. 5. The Tribunal considered the submissions, material on record, and legal citations presented. 6. The date of service of the notice was not established, and it was noted that the AR attended hearings but specific mention of documentary evidence requested on subsequent dates was lacking. 7. The CIT (A) rejected the assessee's arguments regarding the delay in furnishing information and the custody of books of accounts, emphasizing the AR's appearance and written reply. 8. The CIT (A) did not mention the service of the notice or details of the written reply filed by the AR, as discussed in the assessment order. 9. The Tribunal found no deliberate defiance by the assessee, as compliance during assessment proceedings was considered good compliance, and the charge of non-compliance was not substantiated with specific evidence. 10. The date of service of the notice was crucial, and the Tribunal referred to a previous decision where initiation of penalty without recording satisfaction did not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 11. Following the precedent, the Tribunal held the penalty under section 271(1)(b) to be wrong and directed the AO to delete the penalty. 12. The appeal was allowed on grounds of bad service of the statutory notice, rendering the penalty order void ab initio. 13. The Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the assessee on 30/03/2017.
|
