9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee the AO appears to have levied the penalty for seven assessment years , i.e., from 2005-06 to 2011-12 and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the 4 assessment years i.e. the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, considering the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In our opinion, the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when he was satisfied that there was a proper and plausible explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act. No cogent reason to observe any willful default on the part of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors on 28.03.2011. Notice u/s. 153A was issued to assessee and notice u/s. 142(1) alongwith a questionnaire was issued on 06.12.2012 fixing the hearing for compliance on 20.12.2012. On this date the AR of the assessee attended and submitted partial details required by the AO. The case was adjourned to 28.12.2012, which stood un-complied. In response to penalty notice, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated in 12 cases of assessee group and detailed notices and questionnaires in 12 cases were received on 15.12.2012; that the requisite information were prepared and filed from time to time before the AO; that on 20.12.2012, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed partial information; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her attended on 31.12.2012 and reply in some of the group cases was submitted; that the assessee was also handicapped due to non-availability of seized records, copy of statements recorded on search despite the assessee made requests vide letter dated 06.04.2011 and 24.05.2012; that the assessee filed complete information in 11 cases out of 12 questionnaires issued to the assessee before the receipt of show cause notice of penalty on 31.01.2013 and for A.Y. 2005- 06 to A.Y. 2010-11, all the details were filed and are available on record of the department; and that in view of huge quantum of work involved in 12 cases of six years, from the date 15/12/2012 the assessee had been preparing and filing information before A.O. in phases from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on relied by assessee in case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust, 115 TTJ 419, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) can be sustained. The relevant findings read as under : We also find that the finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliances in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO. Therefore, in such circumstances, there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful. 7. In the instant case the notice issued for hearing on 20.12.2012 stood complied with, as the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings on this date and submitted reply/det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
