9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.As. No. 3143 to 3146/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2022 - Shri Rama Kant Panda, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CA For the Respondent : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR ORDER The above four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 16th February, 2015 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi [for short CIT(A)] relating to Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively. 2. For the sake of convenience these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2.1 These appeals were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non prosecution. Subsequently, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee filed the order of the Tribunal in the case of Glenasia Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 589, 590 and 591/Del/2015 order dated 3rd October, 2017 and the decision in the case of Odimco Technologies P. Ltd. and batch of other appeals vide order dated 2nd May, 2018 and submitted that under identical circumstances, where the assessments were completed u/s.143(3) the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act was deleted. He submitted that since in the instant case also the assessments are completed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer has rejected the explanation of the assessee on the premise that after issuance of notice dated 06.12.2012, the assessee sought the copies of seized material vide letter submitted on 18.01.2013, i.e., about one and half months and nothing prevented the appellant to seek the copies of seized material at earlier stage. We do not agree with this observation of the AO in view of the contention of the assessee that the assessee had already made requests for the same vide letters dated 06.04.2011 and 24.05.2012, which fact appears to have been ignored by the authorities below. The contention of huge quantum of work with respect to same cause of action in other group of cases, in the attending facts and circumstances can also not be ruled ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 Id. 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. 9. In view of above discussion, we do not find cogent reason to observe any willful default on the part of the assessee or non co-operative attitude with the department. Therefore, we find no justification to sustain the penalty imposed u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. 7. Further, under similar circumstances, in the case of Globus Infocom Limited VS DCIT ITA 738/12/2014, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
