9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time in the notice, time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice hardly two or three days left with the assessee. It is noted that the ld. Assessing Officer has not made a good case for non compliance on the part of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances narrated before us, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, imposed upon the assessee. Thus, the impugned appeals are allowed in favour of assessee. - ITA NOs.6944 to 6950/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri Neel Khandelwal For The Revenue : Shri B.S. Bist-DR ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant carves to leave to add, to alter, to amend, to modify and to substitute the grounds of Appeal at any time before or at any time of hearing of the appeal. 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Ms. Nidhi Patel, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf ofthe Assessee and by Shri K Mohandas, Senior Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Since, common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed together by this order. 3.1. During the course of hearing detailed arguments have been made by Ms. Nidhi Patel, learned counsel of the assessee, assailing the order of the AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for alleged non-compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of hearing. Further, in any case, subsequently, the assessee had sincerely attended and submitted whatever details and documents were available with the assessee, which is evident from this fact that assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, and therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and judgment of Honb le Delhi Bench ITAT in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhavan Trust vs. ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) In nutshell she submitted that the penalty order passed by the AO was unfair and factually incorrect, unjustified and contrary to law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Rather, it is noted that subsequently details and documents were filed by the assessee to the AO on the basis of which assessment proceedings were completed and assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144. Thus, it shows that subsequently, compliance has been made by the assessee. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion without giving adequate time and without making out a case of substantive non-compliance by the assessee, it was unfair and unjustified on the part of the AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b). In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that levy of penalty was not justified. The action of the AO is unsustainable in the eyes of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
