9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el./2013 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2014 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri B. C. Meena,JJ. For the petitioner : Shri A. K. Srivastava, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Parvinder Kaur, Senior DR ORDER Per I. C. Sudhir, Judicial Member : All these appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 28.05.2013 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the premises of the assessee on 17.09.2010. Consequent thereupon, assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were in progress. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 19.11.2012 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record, we find that firstly, even as per the penalty orders, it has been observed that the notices u/s 142 (1) of the Act were issued on 19.11.2012, for 26.11.2012, giving a very short time of only six days. Moreover, as to when these notices were served, rather as to whether such notices were served at all, does not find mention in the penalty orders. Thus, the assessee was not provided sufficient time to respond to the notice. 7. Further, a perusal of the assessment orders shows that there is no mention therein, of any non-cooperation by the assessee with the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we do not find these cases to be fit for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Such penalties are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed 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 served upon the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the time of less than ten days allowed by the Assessing Officer for complying with the detailed questionnaire cannot be said to be a sufficient time being allowed to the assessee and, therefore, failure of the assessee to comply with such notice cannot be said to be a default which may justify the levy of penalty under section 271(1)((b) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed by the statute. 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Similarly, in the cases of Roop Kishore Madan vs. DCIT, Central Circle 21, New Delhi in ITA Nos.4743 to 4749/Del/2013 dated 30.01.2014 and ITAT, Delhi Bench G , New Delhi in the case of Sanya Hospital Diagnostic vs. DCIT, Central Circle 21, New Delhi Anr. in ITA Nos.4661 to 4664/Del/2013 dated 14.02.2014, the ITAT has deleted the penalty. Facts remain the same, therefore, the penalties in the present appeals deserve to be deleted. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, all the seven appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
