9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate authority and also in the written submission that on the said date the assessee’s counsel was not available as he had gone to I.T.A.T., Indore Bench, Indore, for hearing and moreover, the details were still awaited to be taken out from the records, which were to be submitted before the AO and which was to be received from 50 District Offices all over Madhya Pradesh. The Officer incharge Mr. Lalit Chaturvedi had verbally informed the AO and requested for adjournment. Thus, it is seen that the counsel of the assessee was preoccupied with hearing before Tribunal, hence, the assessee could not appear before the AO on specified date. Further, the information was to be collected from 50 locations spread all over M.P. State, hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case, the ld. CIA(A)-I erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Incometax Act of ₹ 10,000/- without considering the full facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Government of M.P. Undertaking. As per the penalty order passed by the A.O for the A. Y 2005-06, it was stated that during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the A. Y. 2005-06, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 19.11.2012 requiring the assessee to furnish in writing some specified information on or before 29.11.2012. The same notice was duly served upon the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2005-06. 4. Aggrieved by imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the return of income was submitted on 29th October, 2005 with Audited Accounts and Tax Audit Report showing total income of ₹ 36,20,59,300/-, tax on which was fully paid. The case was selected under scrutiny. All the information asked by the Assessing Officer was submitted giving the detailed explanation with all documents and evidence from time to time. The case was re-opened u/s 147 on certain queries and points for which notice u/s 148 dated 23rd March 2012, was received on 28th March 2012 which was duly replied on 24th April 2012. In complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch default in this regards in the past. However, the ld. CIT(A) after discussing the reasons in the orders has confirmed the penalty as imposed by the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Though the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee was not present at the time of hearing, but sent the written submissions before the Bench, which are taken on record and have been considered. 6. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as the written submission submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. We find that Section 273B provides that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonable cause for the said failure. 8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has enunciated the meaning of reasonable cause in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, (2001) 252 ITR 471. It was held that the reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. In the case of Woodward Governors India Private Limited vs. CIT, (2001)118 Taxman,433 (Del). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has expressed expression sufficient cause . Therefore, in the context of penalty provisions, the words reasonable cause would mean a cause that is beyond the control of assessee. In CWT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given show cause notice on 01.02.2013, as to why the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- should not be levied upon the assessee for non-compliance of statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per the assessee s version before the appellate authority and also in the written submission that on the said date the assessee s counsel was not available as he had gone to I.T.A.T., Indore Bench, Indore, for hearing and moreover, the details were still awaited to be taken out from the records, which were to be submitted before the AO and which was to be received from 50 District Offices all over Madhya Pradesh. The Officer incharge Mr. Lalit Chaturvedi had verbally informed the AO and requested for adjournment. Thus, it is seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
