9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tle above, have challenged different common orders of the ld. CIT(A)- XXVI, New Delhi, sustaining the penalties imposed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the captioned assessment years. 3 2. Since in all the appeals the issues involved are same arising out of the identical set of facts, therefore, the same were being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we take up the appeal No. 4610/Del./2015 filed by M/s. Witness Builders Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09. 3. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the levy of penalty of ₹ 20,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) for all the impugned assessment year which was on account of failure to comply with the statutory notices, fixing the date of hearing on 30.11.2012. 4. The brief facts qua the levy of impugned penalty are that the assessee was working with the MDLR group of companies and were also director and share holder in some of the group companies. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was conducted at various premises of MDLR group and also at the residential premises in January, 2008. In pursuance of search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s 153 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, that is, it does not mention about any notice or any date of non-compliance for which such penalty proceedings has been initiated; secondly, the assessee has ultimately made compliances of all the notices by submitting it's reply on the details and query asked by the AO on the dak counter or through registered/speed post; 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. 6 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions, these could not possibly have hindered the presence of the assessee/A/R before the AO on 30.11.2012 and 28.12.2012. 8.5. As per section 271(1)(b) read with section 273B, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is visited upon the taxpayer who has failed to comply with the notices mentioned therein, for each default unless reasonable cause for such failure is proven. In the case at hand, the appellant has made assertions and claims that are not valid for noncompliance 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(1) (b) read with section 274, the only aspect that has to be examined is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on the said date were due to the fact that group head, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal was currently not available and the whole family members and the group heads were engaged in ongoing court proceedings to get early release of Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was in judicial custody. This contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. Assessing Officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings have not been accepted and he proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 read with section 153A. However on perusal of various replies filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that most of the compliances have been made through replies/letters sent to the Assessing Officer either by filing in the dak or through registered/speed post. This is further corroborated by details of replies filed in various group cases as referred to by Ld. Counsel before us. 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 replies do have been filed in the course of assessment proceedings and 9 all the necessary details re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
