9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.559-563/Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate and Shri Sunil Surana, FCA For The Respondent : Shri S.M. Das, Addl. CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH:- These are five appeals by same assessee against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata of even dated i.e. on 26.02.2014. Penalty levied by ITO Ward-55(3), Kolkata u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide his orders dated 29.06.2012 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 respectively. Shri S.M. Surana and Sunil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant could not attend to the proceeding due to wife s illness its also examined. On perusal of record, it is seen that no supporting documents in support of wife s illness which prevented the appellant to attend such important matter relating to income tax, has been furnished. Further, it is seen that the appellant was assisted by authorized representative during assessment stage and appellate stage. The matter in case of exigency could have been deleted to an authorized representative. Further as is evident from the assessment record and order sheet the AO had issued notices for a period for about 1 year for both assessment as well as penalty proceeding hover, there has been continuous non compliance to the notice issued. Further, during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the penalty notice. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the notice U/s 142(1) on 29.8.2011. 7.For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) be modified and the assessee be given the relief prayed for. 8. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing. 6. Before us Ld. AR for the assessee reiterated same submissions as made before Ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR in support of assessee s claim has further submitted that appeal against the quantum addition was filed before Hon'ble ITAT with condonation petition and Hon'ble ITAT was pleased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 76 [section 271F, 77 [section 271FA,] 78 [section 271FAB,] 79 [section 271FB,] 80 [section 271G,]] 81 [section 271GA,] 81a [ section 271GB, ] 82 [section 271H,] 83 [section 271-I,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or 84 [section 272B or] 85 [sub-section (1) 86 [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] 87 [subsection (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause 88 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT, in assessee s own case (supra), we find that there was sufficient reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1) by AO. Accordingly, we, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to cancel the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The ground raised by assessee is accordingly allowed. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed. Coming to ITA No.560-563/Kol/2014 for A.Ys.05-06 to 09-10 . 9. As stated earlier, the issues in these year(s) are as that of the last year. The only difference is the amount involved. Since the facts are exactly identical, both the parties are agreed whatever view taken in the above appeal in ITA No. 559/Kol/2014 of assessee may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
