Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... NTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Ashish Bansal & Shri Saurabh Agarwal For the Respondent : Shri Umesh Pathak ORDER PER BENCH: There are 17 appeals under consideration for the different assessment years and these appeals are filed by 12 different assesses. The appeals under consideration relate to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Considering the commonality of the facts and issues, these appeals are clubbed and adjudicated in this composite order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that all these assesses covered u/s 132 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) on 01.03.2011, 16.04.2010, as the case may be, calling for the returns. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while passing the regular assessment orders u/s 143(3) of the Act and the computation of assessed income was made after due cognizance of the returned income. When the assessments were so completed, the penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act are not sustainable etc. in view of the presumption that the assessee Co-operated with the department by furnish the requisite information/documents while completing the block/regular assessments, as the case may be. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue mentioned that the assessee is non co-operative and therefore, the penalties were rightly levied. 6. In this regard, learned counsel relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Noor C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us, the appeal is allowed. 8. Further, he relied on the decision in the case of Paigam Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 4787 to 4791/Del/2013 dated 06.02.2014. In this regard he reproduced para 5 and 5.1 from the said order as under:- "5. Having heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record in the above mentioned factual matrix, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case there is nothing on record to show that penal action was warranted as in all these years on the specific date very little time was given by the AO to the assessee to offer explanation. Moreover, the returned income was accepted vide order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for each of the years evident from the copies filed. In these facts it can .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Assessing Officer for non-compliance of the notice dated 8.11.2010. From the assessment order, it is evident that the notice u/s 142(1)/143(2) dated 8.11.2010 alongwith the detailed questionnaire was issued fixing the case for 18.11.2010. These details have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 2 pages 1 of the assessment order. Thus, total ten days' time was allowed from the date of issue of the notice. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the date on which such notice was served upon the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the time of less than ten days allowed by the Assessing Officer for complying with the detailed questionnaire cannot be said to be a sufficient time being allowed t othe asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for not making compliance of the notice dated 20.09.2011, u/s 142(1) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) had noted that even in response to a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 07.012.2011 requiring the assessee to show cause on 07.02.2012 as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) should not be levied, was not replied. This show cause was also not complied with. However, we observe that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3), and therefore, it is implied that subsequently, the assessee had attended to the assessment proceedings. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ADIT vide para 2.5 of the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates