9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith an affidavit stating the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation petition. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. On perusal of the affidavit, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal and hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Kochi in I.T.A. No.9/R-II/E/CIT(A)-II/08-09 dated 30/06/2014 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 272(1)(c) for 2002-03 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) went wrong in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant humbly prays that the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A), may kindly be considered as part of these grounds. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order of the First Appellate Authority, cancel the penalty, allow the appeal and render justice. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Architect and the proprietor of M/s. Najeeb Associates. The assessee is also engaged in the business of civil construction as a contractor and is also a builder. The assessee did not file the return of income as required u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice by the assessee, either on the appointed day or thereafter. Penalty proceedings were posted on subsequent occasions, but there was no proper compliance to any of these notices. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer finalized the penalty proceedings by order dated 31/03/2008 with the following observations:- "As has ;abundantly clear and established, the assessee has not co-operated with the Department in completion of the assessment proceedings also. In the circumstances, I hold that the mens-rea has been proved and that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income by not filing the return of income u/s. 139 and even in spite of the notice u/s. 142(1). I am satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year commences from 01/04/2001 and extends to 31/03/2002. The search was carried out on 20/09/2001. Therefore, the income of the assessee upto 20/09/2001 relating to the assessment year 2002-03 has already been included in the Block assessment. Pursuant to the Block assessment order u/s. 153BC relatable to the assessment year 2002-03, income upto 20/09/2001 had already been assessed in the Block Assessment Order. The consequential penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Act was set aside by the ITAT, Cochin Bench, after having found that the income was determined on estimate basis with reference to the various documents found at the time of search. It was pleaded that the same facts and findings are relevant for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
