9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and brevity. 3. First we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 6368/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: "That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the assessee under section 271(1)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should be deleted." 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee in response to notice u/s 153A/153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed the return of income on 13.02.2012. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued on 19.09.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce against time, but the details required by him had not been filed and if the AO was to get all the details at the 11th hour, it would not be appropriate for completing the assessment. According to the ld. CIT(A) the reasons given by the assessee did not explain the total non-compliance. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that levying the penalty for 7 years would be harsh on the assessee. He, therefore, considered it appropriate if the penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each only for 3 years out of the 7 assessment years involved were to be confirmed. He accordingly confirmed the penalty to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- each for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007- 08 and deleted the penalties for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 7. Now the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering from severe disease and had to be hospitalized on 06.10.2012. Thereafter on the date of hearing i.e. 09.10.2012, Sh. Satya Prakash Gupta "head of the family" and "father-in-law" of the assessee became ill and had to be hospitalized due to heart attack. In my opinion there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance for the hearing fixed on 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
