9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate Shree Chand Gupta wherein it was submitted that written submission may be considered for deciding the present matter. Accordingly, it was decided to hear this matter after considering the written submission of the assessee and hearing the ld. DR and material available on record. 3. In her written submissions, the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) while reducing the penalty has not properly considered and appreciated the assessee's written submissions. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the penalty order has wrongly stated that the assessee willfully not complied with the notices issued by him. It was submitted that she is an illiterate lady who even does not know how to sign and accordingly she appoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings u/s 271(1)(b) were initiated during the assessment proceedings for non-compliance to two notices namely, notice u/s 142(1) dated 9.10.2017 and subsequent notice u/s 142(1) dated 31.10.2017 and thereafter, penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs. 20,000/- vide order dated 26.06.2018. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000 apparently for the reason that subsequent default is continuation of the initial default and penalty cannot be levied for each and every default. 6. The issue therefore is limited to non-compliance to first notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 9.10.2017 and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and whether there is reasonable cause for non-compliance in terms of section 273B of the Act or not. Firstly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on part of the authorized representative at the second scheduled date of hearing, at the same time, the possibility of non-availability of the requisite documents as so required by the Assessing officer cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in absence of these facts and without confronting the authorized representative, we are unable to accede to the contention of the assessee that merely because she has authorized a Chartered accountant, the entire fault lies with the Chartered accountant and assessee cannot be faulted as the non-compliance is by way of non-filing of the information/documents so sought by the Assessing officer and not limited to attending to the proceedings before him. 7. The second contention raised by the assessee is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the findings of the Assessing officer reads as under:- "The reply filled the A.R. of the assessee is not genuine & not acceptable, as the assessee has not made the compliances of the notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 09.10.2017 & 31.10.2017 during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the AO has rightly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is not excusable. Thus, considering the facts of the case as discussed above in connection with non compliance of the notices mentioned above as well as discussed in assessment order, it is clear that the assessee has willfully not cooperated to the department in finalizing the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
