9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)-II, New Delhi all dated 4.3.2013, separately passed in above captioned appeals u/ 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since sole issue involved in these appeal is related to the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, we have clubbed these appeals together and for the sake of convenience to avoid repetition, these are being disposed of by this single consolidated order. 2. Sole ground raised by the respective appellants in these appeals read as under:- "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case has erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that search and seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia assessment order, penalty order and impugned orders. The ld. authorized representative of the assessee (AR) submitted that as per para 3 of the assessment order, Shri Dinesh Jain and AR attended the proceedings in these cases and the Assessing Officer has not recorded any finding in this regard that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. The AR further contended that the notices initiating the assessment proceedings in consequence of the search action started after one year and nine months leaving less than 6 months for completion of search assessment involving more than 70 cases to complete. The AR further contended that the assessee and his authorized representative attended enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we clearly observe that Shri Dinesh Jain, CA and authorized representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings and also filed necessary details and documents as per requirement of the Assessing Officer. In this situation, mere single instance of absence which occurred due to outstation visit of the AR to Mumbai does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. From the assessment and penalty orders, we also observe that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any finding of fact that the assessee was habitual of non-compliance of notices issued by the department and moreover, we also observe that the assessments were completed on 27.12.2011 on the returned document without making any disallowance or addition. In this situati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
