9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e problems; secondly, more than 300 group assessments were initiated in the wake of search proceedings which were simultaneously going on, therefore, it was difficult to comply to the various notices on short dates; lastly, it has been strongly pleaded before us, that the compliances had been made through replies filed through dak or registered post though belatedly. These facts have not been controverted by the AO or CIT (Appeals). Thus all it constitute reasonable cause falling within the scope and ambit of section 273B and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that failure to comply with certain notices on a particular date was due to reasonable cause. Also demand in the quantum proceedings has been reduced to “nil”, after giving effect to the first appellate order and there has been no substantive non-compliance either during the course of the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. In such circumstances such an alleged breach or non-compliance is mere technical and venial in nature and therefore, penalty should not be levied for such venial breach - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.4424 And 4425/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 * thirdly, it was submitted that more than 303 group assessments were conducted during the short span of five months, hence it was very difficult to comply with all the notices in all the cases at the appointed dates, but the assessee though belatedly on some occasion duly submitted all the replies before the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings of the assessee. * lastly, it was submitted that the main controlling person, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was looking after the entire matter was detained in judicial custody since August, 2012 and was there for more than 2 years. Since, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal was entrusted with all the decisions and was aware of the tax matters and documents; therefore, there was delay in collecting information and consequently making certain compliances. Thus, it was pleaded that there was a reasonable cause for delay in submitting the replies or non-compliance on the appointed date. 5. However, the ld. Assessing Officer levied the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not attend offices in response to the various notices issued or date fixed on two of the occasions. 6. The Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch failure is proven. In the case at hand, the appellant has made assertions and claims that are not valid for non-compliance of statutory notices. No compelling and reasonable cause for failure to comply with the statutory notices has been advanced. 8.6. While examining the matter of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) read with section 274, the only aspect that has to be examined is 5 whether there was any reasonable cause that prevented the appellant from complying with the statutory notices issued by the AO. Here, the appellant did not comply with the statutory notices on 2 different occasions spread over a period of 3 months. The appellant could have escaped from the rigors of penalty, had the statutory notice been acknowledged and adjournment requested timely. However, the appellant chose to completely ignore the statutory notices, and therefore in the absence of a reasonable cause, became liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that in response to the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee has filed very exhaustive reply before the Assessing Officer. The copy of which have been placed in the paper book and also pointed out that during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 read with section 153A. However, it is not in dispute that the assessee has filed replies before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings by filing the same either in dak or registered/speed post. 10. Ostensibly there may be a case of delay in compliance or filing of replies before AO and not personally appearing before the Assessing Officer on a particular date, but compliances in form of 7 replies do have been filed in the course of assessment proceedings and all the necessary details required for the purpose of assessment has been provided. What are required to be seen while levying penalty for non-compliance of statutory notices is the facts and circumstances for non-appearance on the specified date, that is, whether there was any reasonable cause and the overall conduct of the assessee. The main planks for reasonable cause pleaded by the assessee has been that, firstly, the key person/group head, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was entrusted with income tax matters and was looking after the entire working of the group was in judicial custody in some criminal proceedings and the entire group and family member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
