9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO seeking same information would not multiply the default. Even if the AO issued 4 notices under section 142(1) but the information sought in all these notices was the same, then it would constitute only one default. As regards the explanation of the assessee for explaining the cause of non-compliance, we find that except the last notice dated 11.08.2017, the earlier 3 notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) were issued prior to the date of alleged transfer on 03.08.2017. Therefore, the said explanation of the assessee is without any substance or merits. Hence we restrict the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against 4 defaults treated by the AO. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransferable job and he was transferred from Alwar to Amroha (U.P) in the year 2017. 4. That the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the no notice was received or served on the assessee before initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, as the assessee was transferred from Alwar to Amroha (UP), therefore, the assessment has been completed in ex-party. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in non-quashing of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) which is wrongly initiated by the AO. 6. that in any case the penalty imposed is unjust, arbitrary and highly excessive. 7. That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee is an Individual and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and, therefore, except the last notice, earlier three notices were issued allegedly before transfer of the assessee. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as the arguments of the ld. D/R and carefully perused the impugned orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee has neither filed any return of income nor appeared before the AO in response to the notice under section 148 as well as notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AO has initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The details of the notices issued under section 142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. As regards the explanation of the assessee for explaining the cause of non-compliance, we find that except the last notice dated 11.08.2017, the earlier 3 notices issued by the AO under section 142(1) were issued prior to the date of alleged transfer on 03.08.2017. Therefore, the said explanation of the assessee is without any substance or merits. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we restrict the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against 4 defaults treated by the AO. Accordingly, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act is confirmed to the extent of ₹ 10,000/-. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/01/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
