9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. Seized books of accounts, documents and material were duly confronted to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. Regular books of accounts were produced and checked with the seized documents.” This shows that the assessee has made full compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) though with some delay but this is not the case of noncompliance of notices. Relying upon the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ITO [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G ] has held that “in the absence of recording satisfaction, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty”. It was further held that assessment having made u/s 143(3) means that subsequent complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and in the case of Kymore Iron Ores Pvt Ltd. also on the same grounds penalties had been levied vide orders dated 07.11.2014 17.12.2014 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. 3. As per the penalty orders, search in the case of these assessees took place on 20.6.2012. After that notices were issued u/s 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2007- 08 to 2012-13 on 3.6.2013. The notices were also issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 26.8.2014 and dated 12.11.2014 fixing the date of hearing for 21.11.2014. It was specifically mentioned in the notices that failure to comply with the notices would lead to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for ₹ 10,000/-. However, nobody attende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions which were made before the learned CIT(A). The same are being reproduced hereunder :- 1. The above appeals have been filed against the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act on 07.11.2014 17.12.2014. 2. The A.O. has levied the penalties to the assessee on the ground that he has not complied with the notices issued u/s.142(1) on 26.08.2014 and on 12.11.2014. The penalty has been levied ₹ 10000 for each default in all assessment years. 3. The sequence of the events are as under :- Date Particulars 03.06.2013 Notices issued u/s.153A of the I.T. Act address given in the notice as Kymore Iron Ores Pvt Ltd, 188, Rizwan Bagh, Bhopa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices has always been sent at the wrong address which had never been address of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee could not get the notices in time as explained above and due to this reason, the submission in compliance to the notices was filed belatedly on 28.11.2014 and, therefore, the A.O. is not justified in levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. 5. It may be submitted that as the assessee made the compliance of notices issued to him u/s.142(1) from time to time, though belatedly and, therefore, the learned A.O. made the assessment of the assessee u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A. In the following case, it has been held that assessment having made u/s.143(3) means that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e full compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) though with some delay but this is not the case of noncompliance of notices. The ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Shankerlal Soni Vs. ACIT 13 ITJ 96 (Ind-Trib) held that the assessee appeared in the assessment proceedings time to time, the assessment orders were passed u/s. 143(3) - these facts show that subsequent compliance was treated as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and, hence penalty cannot, therefore, be levied. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.; 246 ITR 568 has held A bare reading of the provisions of section 271 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
