9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manner prescribed by the statute". orders of the authorities below set aside and delete the levy of penalty. appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. - IT APPEAL NOS. 1366 & 1367 (DELHI) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2010 - I.P. BANSAL, SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. S.R. Wadhwa for the Appellant. Amrish Bedi for the Respondent. ORDER 1. These appeals are filed by the respective assessees who are husband and wife, against the respective orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs. 10,000 each. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals were heard together. These are being consolidated and disposed of together for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see stated that notice dated May 31, 2007 had been sent to the old address and therefore, not received. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not accept this contention of the assessees holding that the address at which the notice was sent was the same as that given in the return of income. Any change in address was subsequently not intimated to the Assessing Officer. Hence, he confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Against this order both assessees are in appeal before us. 7. Before us learned counsel for the assessee submitted that non-receipt of notice was the reason for the assessees' non-appearance and this is reasonable cause under section 273B of the Income-tax Act. In this regard, he referred to the hon'ble jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer was caused by non-receipt of the notice. This in our considered opinion can be construed as reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance by the assessees. 10. Under such circumstances, rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(b) are not attracted in the case of the assessee. In this regard, we place reliance from the apex court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that (headnote) "an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
