2022 (10) TMI 149 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1) (b) - non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) - HELD THAT - As additions were made in the hands of the assessee were not because of the reasons that assessee did not furnish the requisite information but because of search related issues. It is also shown that the assessment has been made after considering of the details filed by the assessee under Section 153A of the Act read with section 143(3) of the Act. None of the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act. This clearly shows that there are materials to suggest that the learned Assessing Officer was satisfied, on the whole, overall compliance made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In view of this, the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act or under Section 272A (1)(d) of the Act deserves to be cancelled. The judicial precedent cited before us of the co-ordinate Benches in case of Globus Infocom Limited 2016 (6) TMI 1304 - ITAT DELHI and in case of DLF Commercial Enterprises 2021 (4) TMI 327 - ITAT DELHI supported the case of the assessee. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act for six different assessment years.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act for six assessment years. The penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each year was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The main ground of appeal was against the confirmation of the penalty.

2. The search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act was conducted on a group, including the assessee, leading to assessment proceedings for six assessment years. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, asking for details by a specified date. The assessee failed to comply, resulting in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

3. For some assessment years, the penalty was under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act instead of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

4. The assessee contended that the non-compliance was inadvertent due to ongoing search matters and submitted details during assessment proceedings. The CIT (A) rejected the contention, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

5. The Authorized Representative argued that subsequent compliance during assessment proceedings should be considered satisfactory, citing judicial precedents where penalties were deleted. Similar arguments were made for all six appeals.

6. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders.

7. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's findings regarding compliance and the penalty levied. The assessment orders were passed after considering details filed by the assessee, indicating overall compliance. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that penalties should be canceled.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act for all six assessment years.

9. As a result, all six appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision.