9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s : Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate and Sh. Lalit Mohan, C.A. For the Respondent : Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench: The above batches of appeals at the instance of different assessees arise out of respective orders of the ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi for the captioned assessment years. In all these appeals, the assessees have challenged the sustenance of penalties imposed against the assessees to the tune of ₹ 20,000/- each u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 for non-compliance of statutory 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 pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, contended that the issue involved in all these appeals, being similar, is squarely covered in favour of the assessees by the aforesaid decision of co-ordinate Bench. 5 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of material available on record, we find that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee s group case, 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a statutory notice, issued in the case of a specific assessee for a particular AY requiring attendance on the stated date, the pendency of a large number of other cases of the group is an irrelevant fact. Moreover, the burden of pendency of assessments was larger for the AO, who was required to examine each case, examine the seized materials, obtain the explanation of each assessee, carry out necessary verifications, afford opportunity to each of them in terms of the principle of natural justice, and thereafter pass the assessment order before the time barring 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd findings of the Learned CIT(Appeals). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned order. Here in this case, first of all, on perusal of the penalty notice as appearing at page no. 6 of the paper book, it is seen that nowhere the Assessing Officer has mentioned about any particulars of statutory notice/s for which there was any default on part of the assessee. Show cause notices issued for initiating penalty proceedings should be specific and without any ambiguity, because the assessee while giving the explanation should 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 avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 as highlighted by the assessee not only during the course of the assessment proceedings but also before the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(Appeals) in the impugned penalty proceedings and hence penalty cannot be levied in such circumstances. 10. Apart from that, one important fact brought on record is that, the 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. Accordingly, the levy of penalty of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
