9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the basis of various details filed by the assessee before the AO, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case in SMT. NEETU NAYYAR AND SMT. MEENA NAYYAR VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 NEW DELHI [ 2020 (12) TMI 1221 - ITAT DELHI ] it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6209 to 6214/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2021 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Anil Jain, CA For the Department : Shri Frat Khan, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM The above batch of six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 27th May, 2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 respectively. Since identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all the appeals, the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- for each o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led upto 25.10.2018 on account of non-availability of reasonable time. And if the time allowed for the compliance of the notice is not sufficient, penalty u/s 271(l)(b) cannot be levied. For this proposition, the assessee relied on the judgment of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Chogori Distribution (P) Ltd vs DCIT, ITA 4435/Delhi/2015. 6. It was further submitted that the assessment in the instant cases have been completed by the AO u/s 153A/ 143(3). It was submitted that the courts and the Tribunal have held that when assessment has been completed u/s 143(3), penalty u/s 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed. For this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Globus Infocom Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT, Delhi ITAT, ITA 738/Del/2014 ii. Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh vs Assistant Director of income Tax, Delhi ITAT, ITA 2900/Del/2005 7. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) for all the years by observing as under :- 6. All the grounds relate to issue of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) and are decided as under: 6.1 The chronology of events is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not had replied the notice and it might have taken 2-3 days for service of it. 6.3 The submissions of the appellant are considered in the light of above facts 6.3.1 The appellant had taken the first plea that it appeared on 19.11.2018 before the AO with a letter stating that the notice dated 5.10.2018 was not received by it before 25.10.2018. He claims that the AO had written in his own hand writing on similar letter in the case of group assessee Mr. Neetu Nayyar to appear in person discuss with all facts why notice was not received. As per the assessment records, neither there is any such letter in the case of the appellant on record nor any evidence had filed before the AO to support its stand of non receipt of notice u/s 142(1). 6.3.1.1 Further the appellant had taken the without prejudice stand that even if it is presumed that notice was received within 2-3 days of date of issue on 16.10.2018, there was not enough time to respond these queries by 25.10.2018. It is observed from the sequence of events given in above para that there was no compliance of notices u/s 142(1) issued on 30.08.2018 05.10.2018 and the AO was forced to issue penalty notices on -07.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant. The penalty order u/s 271(l)(b) has been passed by the AO on 06.12.2018 and the first compliance of the notice has been made by the appellant on 07.12.2018. The final orders have been passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A as there was subsequent compliance by the appellant, but many details had to be accepted on face of it by the AO due to no time left for investigation or verification of these details from independent sources. In fact the compliance of the appellant started after levy of penalty by AO and till the time of passing penalty order on 06.12.2018, there was no compliance by the appellant. Thus the act of appellant had severely hampered the assessment proceedings and caused prejudice to it. There was no reasonable cause on the part of appellant to explain such delay. The appellant did not had the courtesy even to apply for adjournment. There were blatant deliberate defaults in compliance to prevent the AO from making proper investigation/verification. Thus the case of appellant cannot be said to factually fall in the category of cited case laws by the appellant. Thus, this plea of the appellant is also rejected. 6.4 In the facts circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessee submitted that it has been held in all these decisions that where the assessee has not made any compliance on certain dates but ultimately due compliance was made and replies filed by the assessee and had participated in the proceedings before the AO and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) then penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1(b) of the Act for non compliance of particular notice merely on technical grounds. He submitted that the AO in the instant case has levied penalty for non compliance to the notice dated 5th October 2018 whereas in the show cause notice dated 9.11.2018 the AO has mentioned that there was non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) dated 16th October 2018. He submitted that even for the sake of arguments if the above notice was received within two three days of the notice dated 16th October 2018 even then also the huge details as asked for by the AO was not possible to be submitted up to 25th October, 2018 on account of non availability of reasonable time. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyer vs. ACIT and Smt. Meena Nayyar vs ACIT vide ITA Nos. 6189/Del/2019 to ITA No. 6194/Del/2016-17 and ITA No. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
