9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad, dated 17-05-2016, confirming the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 2. Brief facts leading to the levy of penalty are that in the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 04-07-2006 and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) did not agree with the above contentions and confirmed the penalty. 4. It was the submission of the Ld. Counsel that assessee could not appear before the AO but, however, he complied with the subsequent notices and assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) only. Therefore, subsequent compliance and assessment u/s. 143(3) can be considered as 'good compliance' and the defaults committed earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted assessment u/s. 143(3) and not u/s. 144, the subsequent compliance can be considered as 'good compliance' for the earlier notices given. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gloubs Infocom Limited Vs. DCIT (supra) has on similar circumstances held as under: "5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO. Therefore, in such circumstances, there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful". 6.1. Respectfully following the same, we are of the opinion that the initial non-compliance may not result in levy of penalty, as assessee has bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
