9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 09.10.2012, as such the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. In the present case, it appears that the AO levied the penalty for 7 assessment years running from 2005-06 to 2011-12 and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the 4 assessment years i.e. the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, considering the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In my opinion, the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when he was satisfied that there was a proper and plausible explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2)/142(1) of the Act were issued on 19.09.2012 fixing the case for hearing on 09.10.2012. On the said date nobody attended, nor any reply had been received from the assessee. The AO considered the same as the violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.01.2013, asking him to explain as to why penalty under the said section may not be levied. The so cause notice was fixed for hearing on 04.02.2013. On the said date also nobody attended, therefore, the AO held that the assessee had no explanation for the default. He, therefore, levied the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal for the assessment year 2007-08. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance on 09.10.2012 and the assessee explained properly as required u/s 273B of the Act. It was also submitted that even the ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation of the assessee for 4 years i.e. assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 as plausible and for remaining 3 years, he considered that there was no explanation for the total non-compliance, which was contradictory. He requested to delete the penalty because it was beyond the control of the assessee to appear for heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In my opinion, the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when he was satisfied that there was a proper and plausible explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. I, therefore, considering the totality of the facts delete the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 10. The other appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No. 6371/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08 is defective and duplicate so it is dismissed. In the case of the other assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
