9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noncompliance of notice on which penalty has been levied. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction is not proper. We further find that in these cases the AO has asked explanation of questions and assessee was given only 7 days time. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee was not given proper opportunity - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.4698 to 4703/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2014 - SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Srivastava, CA For the Respondent : Shri Keyur Patel, Senior DR ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi for assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of above notice u/s 142(1)/questionnaire remains uncomplied with. From the above facts it is conclusively clear that you have intentionally avoided to comply with notice. It shows that you have adopted non cooperative attitude with the department. In view of the above facts I am satisfied that it is fit case to impose a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- within the meaning of section 271 (1)(b) read with section 274 of the I. T. Act. Therefore a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- is levied. 4. Upon assessee s appeal, ld. CIT(A) held that in his view, interest of justice will meet if the levy of penalty is confirmed for the default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty for committing default amounting to &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be levied. 6.1 Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the Ld. Counsel of the assessee s submission that the show cause notice does not mention about the noncompliance of notice on which penalty has been levied. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction is not proper. We further find that in these cases the AO has asked explanation of questions and assessee was given only 7 days time. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee was not given proper opportunity and in the same situation this tribunal in ITA No. 4239/Del/2013 in the case of Shivaansh Advertising and Publications (P) Ltd. vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, we find that Hon ble Apex Court in a decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 held that that An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
