9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /appellant read as under:- "1. The order passed by CIT (A) -XXXIII is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The CIT (A) -XXXIII has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant by the respondent under section 272 A (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT (A)-XXXIII has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant by the respondent under section 272 A (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the appellant for reasons attributable to the Appellant as the Appellant was disabled by the I.T. team to access the hard disc containing the accounting data by not following the proper procedure for the shut down of the same and in the process i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks of accounts before the Investigation Wing of the Department for verification in its case, which it failed to do so purposely and consciously, and despite being in possession of the books of accounts. I, therefore, hold that M/ s HFCL has intentionally and willfully failed to respond to the summon u/ s 131 of the I T Act 1961 and it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/ s 272 A (1) (c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.l0,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand rupees only) is levied as below:- Penalty (As discussed above) = Rs. 10,000/-" From first appellate order of the CIT(A), we note that the penalty was upheld as confirmed by observing and concluding as under:- "6. I have carefully considered the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is not verifiable that the account books were in the server seized by the Department is not verifiable as the account books were never accessed in Investigation Wing even with the help of employees of the appellant company. 6. The main contention of the appellant is that the assessee did cooperate with the Revenue during assessment proceedings and the assessee produced books of accounts before DCIT which is apparent from the observation in para 3.13 and 3.14 of the assessment order. It was also contended by the assessee that on the one hand, the Department is imposing penalty for non-production of account books and on the other hand, the revenue is not considering the account books on the vague allegation that since the assessee has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were not produced at the time of search during post search inquiries and during assessment proceedings and these observations are contrary to the facts noted by him in para 3.13 that the assessee submitted account books, hence, basis of the allegation that the assessee did not comply with the notices of the DCIT is not found to be sustainable. However, we observe that there was a delay in complying with the directions/notices of the DCIT/Assessing Officer but this appears to be due to reasons beyond control of the assessee. In the case of M/s Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs The State of Orissa AIR 1970 Hon'ble Supreme Court 253, as relied by the ld. AR, it was held that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
