9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) on various dates including on 12.04.2012 calling for compliance on 19.04 2012; on 23.08.2012 for compliance on 05.09.2012; on 06.09.2012 for compliance on 13.09.2012; and on 17.09.2012 calling for compliance on 25.09.2012. However, on none of the above dates, the assessee represented before the AO through an Authorised Representative or filed any letter for adjournment. The AO thereafter, issued notice dated 11.10.2012 asking the assessee to explain as to why penalty under Section 271(l)(b) should not be imposed. On the scheduled date on 19.10.2012, the assessee preferred not to comply and, accordingly, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on one instance of default in respect of notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the person has failed to comply with the statutory notice or the direction. The provisions of Section 271(l)(b) provide that no penalty is to be imposed if the person proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the statutory notice. It was submitted that on careful consideration of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) found that the assessee had failed to appear before the AO on at least five occasions. In fact, the AO had initiated the penalty under Section 271(l)(b) and had sought the reply from the assessee on 19.10.2012, However, on that date also, neither the AR of the assessee appeared nor any letter in reply to the said notice was filed. In respect of the other dates of hearing also, no letter see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance 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. As the facts of this case are identical, we hold that the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was patently wrong, specially in view of the fact that the impugned assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
