9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpliance of assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not justified. - We set aside the impugned orders in all the four appeals and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 6305, 6306, 6307 and 6308/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2020 - G. S. Pannu, Vice President and Sudhanshu Srivastava, Member (J) For the Appellant : Aayushi Ajmani, CA For the Respondents : M. Barnwal, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM These four appeals have been preferred by the above captioned assessees and have been filed against the separate orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. Reliance was placed on the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT reported in [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had taken the view that where an assessee had not complied with notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act but the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not u/s. 144, it meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (b) of the Act was not justified. The Ld. Authorized Representative prayed that the penalties imposed should be deleted. 4. Per contra, the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT (supra) wherein the Tribunal had taken a view that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act but the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not u/s. 144 of the Act, that meant that subsequent compliance of assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not justified. The facts in these four appeals are identical to the facts in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ADIT (supra) and further the Department has also not pointed out any order in favour of the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
