9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case is that the assessee is an individual who was not filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee was issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2016 which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 23.03.2016 and 31.05.2016 requesting the assessee to comply the same. However no reply was received. 2.1. Further a notice dated 05.08.2016 was issued which was refused to accept by the assessee. Therefore a final show cause notice was issued dated 11.11.2016 as why not an ex-parte assessment order be passed with the assessee's case and fixed the case for hearing on 30.11.2016. For this final notice also, the assessee neither replied with nor filed any adjournment letter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee contended that the impugned notice dated 31.05.2016 was not issued/served the assessee. The report was sought from the assessing officer on this contention of the assessee. The AO vide his report forwarded by Add. CIT, Range-1(2), Rajkot vide his letter dated 09.01.2020 has reiterated that notice dated 31.05.2016 has been duly served upon the assessee as per his records. The assessee in his rejoinder dated 29.01.2020 has contended that AO has not mentioned anything regarding notice dated-l1.11.2016 for which the penalty is levied. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the impugned penalty has been levied with respect to notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.11.2016 service of which has been confirmed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) confirm the levy of penalty after calling for the remand report from the A.O. and rejoinder filed by the assessee that the service of notice u/s. 142(1) dated 11.11.2016 was not adversely commented by the assessee. However the service of notice dated 31.05.2016 and its non-compliance is not denied by the assessee. We therefore confirm the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Further we find that the so called medical certificate was not filed before the A.O. and A.O. was being forced to pass a best judgment assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 30.11.2016. Therefore there is devoid of merits in the claim of the assessee. Therefore the same is rejected and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
