9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material available on record. 3. The appeal for the A.Ys. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are time barred by 150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for failure to comply with notices issued under section 142(1) at the assessment proceedings. He has submitted that the A.O. in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e condoned and penalty may be cancelled. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has not filed any evidence for service of the impugned order upon the wife of the assessee and that assessee has not filed any explanation whatsoever to explain the delay in filing the appeals after receipt of the impugned order. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that delay in filing the appeals may not be condoned. The Ld. D.R. however, admitted that the Ld. CIT(A) vide Order Dated 02.05.2017 has deleted the additions on merit. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present appeals, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act for non-compliance of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not leviable. Further, even if assessee may not be strictly able to support the explanation for condonation of delay, we are of the view that for taking a pragmatic view in the facts and circumstances explained above, the delay shall have to be condoned. In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal in all the above years. Since the additions on merit have already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and no further appeals are pending as per contention of the Ld. D.R. on merit, therefore, there may not be a default on the part of the assessee and at best it could be considered as a technical default, for which, in our view, penalty should not be levied by the authorities below for failure to comply with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
