9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considered opinion, appellant was having reasonable cause for delay filing on AIR and in our opinion benefit of section 273B should be given to the appellant. Therefore, we delete the penalty in all above said three appeals - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 1427, 1428 And 1429/AHD/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These are three appeals by the appellant against the separate order of the Director of Income Tax (I CI), Ahmedabad, 31/03/2016 for imposing of penalty u/s.271FA for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge was newly recruited and neither was aware of the income tax provision nor the departmental authority informed him about his responsibility of doing the same. This was a genuine fact for the delay and as soon as the assessee comes to know about his responsibility with respect to 285BA the said return has been filled within time specified in the notice. As per order dated 30-3-2016 assessee was imposed with penalty u/s 271 FA (in case of failure to furnish annual information return) of ₹ 100/- per day for 107 days and thereafter continuous default ₹ 500 for 59 days total amounting to ₹ 40,200/-. As the delay is due to reasonable cause and the same has been corrected by filling the return within the time spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledge. Further, he was not provided any information from AIR from his office. He has filed the return and hence return will be foiled in time in future. But ld. Director of income Tax (I CI) was not agree with the plea of the appellant and imposed the penalty in Asst. Year 2015-16 in ITA No.1427/Ahd/2016 of ₹ 8,500/-, in ITA No.1428/Ahd/2016 of ₹ 40,200/- and in ITA No.1429/Ahd/2016 of ₹ 8,700/-. 4. Now all three appeals are before us. 5. Appellant is a Govt. servant and ld. AR stated that they have assigned job to submit AIR to some outsources agency and sometime staff of the outsources agency become careless. In these case, appellant is a newly incumbent with the office and was not aware of the income tax provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
