9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory notices as mentioned in the respective penalty orders as well as in the impugned orders. 2. Referring to the earlier decisions of ITAT, Delhi Benches in other cases of the assessees' group of concerns, the ld. AR submitted that the penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act in the identical facts and circumstances of the cases have been deleted and therefore, the sustenance of penalties in the instant cases is not justified in view of the decisions of coordinate Benches. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of relevant material on record, we find that the issue of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act already stood decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in other group cases of assessees in M/s. Witness Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Others (ITA No. 4610/Del./2015 & Others) vide common order dated 31.08.2017 in the identical facts and circumstances of the cases. For the sake of convenience and completeness, the facts narrated and findings given in the aforesaid decision are reproduced as under : 3. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the levy of penalty of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, Jawala Prasad Aggarwal vs. DCIT(supra), wherein the ITAT, Delhi Bench has deleted the penalties on the identical facts and circumstances of the case. In that case also, the assessee had made similar arguments as made in the present appeals. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below for ready reference : "The sum and substance of assessee's explanation is that- > firstly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) itself is vague because it does not specify about any notice or date of compliance for which there was failure on part of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rring date. Thus, the reasons cited in the written submission are rejected. 8.4. Filing of several writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court, which in turn required substantial paper work was a personal and private decision of the assessees of the group and can hardly constitute a justification for noncompliance of the statutory notices in the case of the appellant. Moreover, if the 'circumstances', cited as 'reasonable cause' for non-compliance of statutory notices, did not come in the way of filing the writ petitions, 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 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(1) (b) read wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be aware of the charge for which penalty is being initiated and can give his specific rebuttal. Such vague notice is fatal to the initiation of the proceedings itself. Further from the perusal of the assessment order, it is gathered that the assessee did not attend the proceedings on 20.11.2012 and 30.11.2012. The assessing officer further mentions that on 5.12.2012, Shri Vishal Mehta, AR along with other authorized persons appeared before him and submitted that non -compliance on the part of the assessee 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/lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 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. Accordingly, the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for all the assessment years is unsustainable for the reasons given above and is directed to be deleted. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 8. Respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid case, and keeping in view the attending facts, circumstances and contentions of both the parties in the present appeal, being identical, we are inclined to cancel the penalty imposed against the assessee u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. 9. Since similar facts are permeating through in all the remaining appeals of various assessees, as noted above, our findings reached in ITA No. 4610/Del./2015 in earlier part of this order, shall apply mutatis mutandis in all other appeals before us. Accordingly, all the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
