9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings was considered as good compliance, but the very charge of non-compliance to the statutory notices was itself conceded. It is seen that ld CIT (A) has rejected the submission of the assessee on mere presumptions and surmises, without support of any specific documentary evidence and legal precedent. See Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ACIT [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G ] It is evident that date of service of the statutory notice in question issued u/s 142(1), has not been established by the ld DR. Its date of service is also not mentioned in the penalty order and assessment order passed by the AO and the appellate order being passed by the CIT (A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 329 /AGR/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation requisitioned by the AO vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 01/06/2012 as well as dated 29/02/2012 was same proves the fact that the appellant has access to the relevant documents and that deliberate noncompliance was displayed by him which continued at least up to the date of imposition of penalty. 3. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- is wrongly confirmed by the ld CIT (A) against the facts of the case. He placed reliance upon the case of Puspa Garg in ITA Nos. 4852 to 4855/ Del/2013 dated 06/02/2014 and Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orrisa (1972); 83 ITR 26 (SC) and that Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ACIT (2008) ITJ 419 (Delhi), contending that in those cases, similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the submission of the assessee inter alia holding that I am not inclined to agree with the argument of vagueness of notice caused delay in the furnishing of information; and books of accounts lying in the custody of the department; and AR appeared on 09/07/2012 is evident from penalty order and that assessee had also filed a written reply on 24/07/2017. 8. The ld CIT(A) has mentioned the factum of the issuance of notice u/s 142(1), but he had neither mentioned the factum of service of the said notice, nor the factum of details of written reply filed by AR for the assessee in compliance to the said notice, as discussed in the assessment order that was passed much before this appellate order. It is evident from the Assessment Order that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order passed by the AO and the appellate order being passed by the CIT (A). We find that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench, Delhi in the Case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust, (supra), wherein in paras 2.4 and 2.5 it has been held as under- 2.4 Coming to the issue of recording satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satishfaction as held by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial enterprises Ltd. (2001)167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568(Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
