9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12-08- 2011 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, Ahmedaad. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) That the CIT (A) has erred in holding that assessee did not have reasonable cause. (2) That on facts and in law Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s.142(1) dated 3-2-2010 and 24-5-2010.The said notices were not complied with. Therefore, the A.O. levied penalty of ₹ 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The undisputed facts as emerge from the above discussion are that the statutory notice under sec.142(1) was issued to the four assessees for Assessment Year 2006-07 only and not for any other assessment years. No notice under sec. 1412(1) was issued to these assessees in respect of other assessment years. So far as letters requiring compliance issued by the Assessing Officer on 14-8-2007 / 17-8-2007 are concerned, it is noticed that except in the case of Shri Kaushal M. Khanna, the letters did not mention that compliance is required to be made u/s.142(1). Before levying penalty under sec. 271(1)(b), there must be specific notice to the assessee for specific assessment year with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance, information sought by the A.O. is very detailed and requires assistance from professionals like Advocate or Chartered Accountant. An affidavit has been filed from Shri Kaushal M. Khanna before the Ld. CIT (A), i.e. erstwhile Chartered Accountant who was handling his tax matters, has left all these assessees and the family is in search of new counsel for making compliance made by the Income Tax Department. It shows that these assessees had really intended to comply with the notices and, therefore, it should not be inferred that there was a default which could invite penalty under section 271(1)(b). The ITAT Delhi Bench-G in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust (supra) has held that if assessment order is passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
