9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee by S/sh. Gautam Jain Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocates Department by Ms. Sweta Nakra Datta, Sr.DR ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals of two assessees are directed against order(s) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi [in short 'the CIT-(A)'] in relation to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Since in all these appeals common issue of levy of penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of failure to comply with the statutory notices, arising out of the identical set of facts, is involved, therefore, same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the facts and circumstances for non-appearance on the specified date, that is, whether there was any reasonable cause and the overall conduct of the assessee. The main planks for reasonable cause pleaded by the assessee has been that, firstly, the key person/group head, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was entrusted with income tax matters and was looking after the entire working of the group was in judicial custody in some criminal proceedings and the entire group and family members were engaged in ongoing court proceedings for his early release and various employees were leaving the group further accentuating the problems; secondly, more than 300 group assessments were initiated in the wake of search proceedings which were simultaneously go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. We also note that in the case of Gobind Goyal (ITA Nos. 4315 to 4321/Del/2015) also in similar set of circumstances, this bench has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawala Prashad Aggarwal(supra). Respectfully, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawala Prashad Aggarwal(supra), we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty of ₹ 20,000/- each levied under section 271(1)(b) the Act in all the appeals. The grounds of appeals are accordingly allowed. 10. In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 31st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
