9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the view that the initial failure becomes technical, which does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Also a similar issue has been considered by this bench, in assessee’s husband case [2016 (10) TMI 552 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM]wherein the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, under similar set of facts has held that the explanations offered by the assessee that she could not attend as on the date of hearing because of insufficient time given by the A.O. to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.30 & 31/Vizag/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that non-attendance on the date of hearing is not intentional, as she was busy in collecting information sought by the A.O. in connection with the assessment proceedings. The assessee further submitted that the A.O. has sought huge information for a period of 7 years, as such she could not able to gather all the information within the time given in the notice. However, the fact is that she had complied with all the information sought by the A.O. and the assessing officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and accordingly, levy of penalty for initial failure to attend for hearing is unjustified. The A.O. after considering the explanations furnished by the assessee, held that the assessee failed to appear on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 TTJ 0001(UO) Ahd Trib. 2) Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 0419 Ahd Trib 3) Karnavati CIT(A), Rajahmundry Air Conditiners (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (2012) 32 CCH Ahd. Trib. 4) Pole Star Securities Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 40 CCH 0374 Del Trib. 6. The CIT(A) after considering the explanations furnished by the assessee, held that a mere non-compliance of initial notices without a different recourse taken by the A.O. does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The intention for non-compliance must persist and that alone can give inference to the assessing officer for levying penalty. In the instant case, though there was initial failure on the part of the assessee for complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the dates of hearing because of insufficient time given by the A.O. to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. Since, the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the ITAT, the penalty levied by the A.O. may be deleted. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supporting the order of CIT(A) submitted that the A.O. has given sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment, therefore, the A.O. was right in levy of penalty for noncompliance of statutory notices issued u/s 143(2) 142(1) of the Act and his order should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he explanations offered by the assessee that she could not attend as on the date of hearing because of insufficient time given by the A.O. to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below: 21. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for failure to comply with statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to offer proper explanation for non-attendance as on the date of hearing. It is the contention of the assessee that nonattendance as on the date of hearing is not inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the assessee that he could not attend on the dates of hearing because of insufficient time to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to delete the penalty levied for the assessment year 2013-14. 11. In this view of the matter and also respectfully following the coordinate bench decision, in the case of Pillala Ramakrishna Rao Vs. ACIT in ITA No.81/Vizag/2016, we are of the view that the reasons given by the assessee for non-appearance for hearing on the date fixed for hearing appears to be reasonable and bonafide. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13 2013-14. 12. In the result, appeals f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
