9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that the assessee has a reasonable cause for non-appearance on that day. There is no justification for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Secondly, in this matter, the assessments have been completed u/s 143(3) due to subsequent compliances in the assessment proceedings, which was considered as good compliances and default committed earlier were ignored. As decided in in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] wherein it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s 142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s. 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was specifically mentioned in the notice that failure to comply with the notice would lead to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for ₹ 10,000/-. On the date fixed for hearing i.e. on 15.10.2015, no submissions were filed with regard to the notice/questionnaire u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, show cause notice for penalty was issued by the AO to the assessee on 07.12.2015 as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, for non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.09.2015. On the date of hearing i.e. on 15.12.2015 , again no reply/submissions were filed by the assessee on or before the date of hearing and no reason/explanation was given by the assessee for non-compliance on the said date. In view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) dated 30.09.2015. However, the assessment is made u/s 153A read with section 143(3) on subsequent compliance. Therefore, subsequent compliance are considered as good compliance and default committed earlier is ignored and, therefore, the penalty cannot be levied. In support of his contention the Ld. AR relied before the AO on the decisions in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., 83 ITR 26 (SC) to contend that penalty may not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do as on technical or venial breach of provision of law. The AR also cited following decision before Ld. CIT(A):- (i) Hotel Blue Moon, (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C.), (ii) Ashok Chaddha, (2011) 337 ITR 399 (Del). He further placed reliance on the case of Shankar Lal Soni, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
