9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing grounds of appeal before us: "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the penalty order passed is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty order by keeping silent on the issue of violation o principles of natural justice. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals) erred in interpreting the binding judicial orders of high court and tribunal on penalty orders. Te appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any of the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 142(1), the A.O imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on him , vide his order under Sec. 271(1)(b), dated 24.10.2016. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(b) before the CIT(A). It was observed by the CIT(A), that as the notice issued to the assessee under Sec. 142(1), dated 08.08.2016 was not complied by the assessee upto 05.10.2016, therefore, a notice on the said date was issued to him under Sec. 271(1)(b). As noticed by the CIT(A), in response to the aforesaid "SCN‟, dated 05.10.2016, an adjournment was sought by a Chartered Accountant, which in the absence of any authorization was declined by the A.O. Also, it was observed by the CIT(A), that despite the fact that the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said request for adjournment that was filed by the assessee. On a perusal of a letter dated 24.10.2016 of the A.O, we find, that the A.O had stated that the request for adjournment made by the assessee vide his letter dated 17.10.2016 (received on 19.10.2016) in response to notice issued under Sec. 142(1), dated 05.10.2016 was rejected. As is discernible from a perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 17.10.2016, we find, that the assessee had specifically sought an adjournment both in respect of the penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) and also the notice issued u/s 142(1). As regards the request of the assessee for adjourning of the proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b), vide his letter dated 17.10.2016 (received by the A.O on 19.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
