9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er this facts and circumstances, the assessee cannot be held guilty of non-complying with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is not sustainable and the AOs directed to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 4186/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - N K Saini, AM And C M Garg, JM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Bhupesh Kumar Dhingra, CA For the Respondent : Shri Y Kakkar, DR ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, New Delhi dated 14/05/2013 in appeal no. 39/ 2011-12 for AY 2009-10 by which penalty order dated 17.06.2011 imposing penalty of ₹ 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 (Order dated 23.1.2014)(Pages Nos. 17 to 20 of Paper Book) (ii) Tanvir Finance Leasing Private Limited vs. ACIT, ITA No. 4238/Del/2013 (Order dated 14.3.2014)(Pages Nos. 21 to 25 of Paper Book), (iii) Satkar Roadlines Private Limited vs. ACIT, ITA No. 4187/Del/2013 (Order dated 12.3.2014)(Pages Nos. 29 to 33 of Paper Book) and (iv) Shivaansh Advertising and Publications (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 4239/Del/2013 (Order dated 3.1.2014)(Pages Nos. 34 35 of Paper Book) 4. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Income Tax authorities . 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Notice u/s 142 (1) of the case was issued on 8.11.2010 along with the detailed questionnaire fixing the case for hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and in this situation penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable. 5. On careful consideration of above submission, we are of the view that the assessing officer issued notice on 8.11.2010 fixing the date 15.11.2010 and assessee by way of written application requested for adjournment to January, 2011 it was dismissed and the assessing officer pass the assessment order on 31.12.2010 under Section 144 of the Act. 6. The DR has no dispute on this fact that the AR submitted an application for adjournment on the fix date of hearing i.e. 15.11.2010. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the assessee did not comply with the notice of the AO u/s 142(1) of the Act. Under this facts and circumstances, the assessee cannot be held guilty of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
