9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attract penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 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 situation, we are inclined to hold that the authorities below wrongly imposed and confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.4378/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4379/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4380/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4381/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4382/Del/2013, I.T.A. No.4383/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4384/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.4385/Del/2013, I.T.A.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative attended the proceedings and nor any written submissions or application for adjournment were filed in the respective cases. Admittedly, assessments were completed u/ 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act in all these cases. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/ 271(1)(b) of the Act asking the assessee to show cause that why penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed for non-compliance of the notice. During the penalty proceedings, on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 20.9.2011, nobody attended nor any written submission or any adjournment application had been filed to explain the failure to attend assessment proceedings on 18.07.2011. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000 in each case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed in these cases because except a single instance, entire proceedings were attended by the assessee and his representative. The AR further contended that the single instance of absence could not be held as non-compliance because Shri Dinesh Jain, CA, who was attending proceedings on behalf of the assessee had to go to Mumbai to attend some professional commitments and subsequently, Mr. Dinesh Jain attended the proceedings till completion of assessment. 6. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that the assessee and his representative is duty bound to attend assessment proceedings and failure in this regard attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
