9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt evidence on record to hold that the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in these admitted facts was not warranted. We have seen that the assessments are concluded u/s 143(3)/153A thereby meaning that shortcoming if any was made good in the assessment proceedings. Thus we quash the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for each of the years and allow the appeals of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .Nos.-4842-4846/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2015 - SMT DIVA SINGH AND SH. J.S.REDDY, JJ. For The Appeellant : None For The Respondent : Sh.Ravi Jain, CIT DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present five appeals have been filed by the assessee pertain to 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessment years wherein conso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milarly for each of the years the returned income was not varied in the 143(3) order. However, in view of the fact that within the time prescribed in the notice dated 07.03.2012, no response was given by the assessee penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was initiated and the assessee was show caused why in each of the years since the assessee failed to give any reply penalty should not be imposed. Since no reply was given despite opportunity penalty @ ₹ 10,000/- was imposed for each of the years under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee came in appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the facts and arguments which we shall refer to subsequently granted partial relief and confirmed penalty only for 5 years instead of 7 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Circle-11, New Delhi and immediately after centralization of the group cases the return was filed. At this juncture it may not be out of place to reproduce the following extract from the assessee s submission on record:- 9. That the assessee group is assessed to tax from many years and they had fully co-operated with the department in assessments proceedings and even during investigation proceedings with the department. 10. That the assessment order for the year was passed u/s. 153A r. w. s. 143 (3) not under section 144 of the Act. From this fact it is crystal clear that the assessee made the compliance in the assessment proceedings as such there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under:- 5. Determination 5.1 I have considered the submissions of the AR and the penalty order. No reasonable cause has been shown except that they were from Nagpur and that not all the cases of the group have been centralized. These. cannot be grounds for total noncompliance to statutory notices. The non compliance to the notices is not disputed. I am of the view that, the appellant should have attended before the AO and taken adjournments. In the given circumstances penalty is leviable. 5.2 However, levying penalty for all the 7 years may be a bit too harsh. Hence penalty is confirmed for 5 out of 7 years. 5.3 In the result penalty for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 are deleted and confirmed for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
