9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. It, therefore, shows that at least on two occasions, assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for the Act for non-compliance to the notices dated 02.05.2013 and 10.09.2013. We, therefore, in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani (2015 (5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI) and in view of the facts discussed above, hold that assessee is liable to pay ₹ 20,000/- as penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act as against ₹ 60,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer. - Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA No. 267/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Nirmit Mehta, AR For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,070/- as against the returned income of ₹ 1,79,431/-. Notices were also issued for initiating penalty under Section 271(1)b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. This appeal relates to penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act of ₹ 60,000/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A) for assessee s non-presence on six occasions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for default in replying to notice under Section 142(1) on six occasions, assessee came in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed as the impugned penalty of ₹ 60,000/- was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as follows:- 6. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of each and every such default. In view of this decision, it is clear that the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is leviable for a specific default/non-compliance, as has happened here and a subsequent compliance/partial compliance can not absolve the assessee from the guilt associated with the previous non-compliance. In this case, the Assessing Officer has clearly specified the notice which was not complied with by the appellant and-the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) levied is with reference to that noncompliance only. In view of Babu Lal vs DCIT, (2004) 91 TTJ (Jd) 368 subsequent partial compliance cannot be treated as compliance with the previous notice u/s 142(1) and there has to be compliance with each and every notice to avoid consequences of non-co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against ld. CIT(A) s order confirming penalty of ₹ 60,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, calculated @ ₹ 10,000/- for non-appearance on six occasions. 10. We notice from the table below appearing in assessment order at paragraph 7, which gives details of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act with remarks about action on the part of the assessee:- Sr. No. Notice issued u/s date of issue Date of Service Date of Hearing Remarks 1 Notice u/s 142(1), Dtd 02.05.2013 02.05.2013 By hand 09.05.2013 No compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax return no income from capital gains has been shown. Assessee again remained silent to this notice of 10.09.2013. These facts have not been rebutted by ld. Counsel and he has only urged that penalty should not be levied for all the defaults. 12. We further observe that similar type of issue of imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, for non-compliance of each and every notice, was adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani (supra) and assessee got part relief as impugned penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was restricted for only first default by observing as follows:- 5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- as against ₹ 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. 13. On perusal of the above decision, we observe that if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or 142(1) of the Act, there lies a remedy with the Assessing Officer for framing best judgement assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed again and again. However, in the case of assessee, we observe that he failed to comply with the notice dated 24.07.2013 and again remained silent in further four notices, as narrated above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
