9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITAT DELHI-G ] and Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] - 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 deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation – order of the CIT(A) set aside and the levy of penalty set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 4603, 4604, 4605, 4606, 4607, 4608 & 4609/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - Shri U. B. S. Bedi And Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Somil Agarwal, CA For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... default amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out before us that show cause notice in this regard was issued by the AO on 1.11.2011. In the said notice, AO noted that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act dated 9/9/2011. Referring to this notice, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the penalty has not been levied for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1) dated 9.9.2011. Thus, he submitted that AO has not assumed proper jurisdiction and hence, he submitted levy of penalty is not justified. He further submitted that penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Publications (P) Ltd. vide its order dated 3.1.2014 has deleted the similar penalty holding as under:- We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The penalty had been levied by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of the notice dated 8.11.2010. From the assessment order, it is evident that the notice under section 142(1)/143(2) dated 8.11.2010 alongwith the detailed questionnaire was issued fixing the case for 18.11.2010. These details have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 2 page 1 of the assessment order. Thus, total ten days time was allowed from the date of issue of the notice. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the date on which such notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
