9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 148 on 06.02.2009 which was sent through speed post and the same was returned back with a remark that the assessee has left. The Assessing Officer served the same by affixture through Ward Inspector at the residential premise of the assessee on 16.02.2009. Neither the assessee nor his AR attended or filed any return of Income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act on 23.11.2009 to the assessee by speed post but the same was returned back with the postal remarks "left". Therefore, the said notice was also affixed by the Ward Inspector on 05.12.2009 at the residential premise of the assessee. The Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act on 31.12.2009 determining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act 1961." Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing before us, on behalf of the assessee, Shri D.R. Adhia, AR appeared and pointed out that the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same without considering the statutory position. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.11.2009 was issued and sent to the assessee by speed post but the same was returned back with the postal remarks "Left". Therefore, the same was affixed by the Ward Inspector on 05.12.2009 at the residential premises of the assessee. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awareness which constitutes reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee further pointed out that whenever the assessee was called for he attended before the DRI Gandhidham from time to time, which shows that whenever there was information/awareness the assessee indeed complied before the DRI, Gandhidahm. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should not have levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. 6. On the other hand, Dr. J.B. Jhaveri, DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that the notice u/s 142(1) was duly served through affixture and it was the duty of the assessee to comply with the same. 7. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
