9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee is delayed by 13 days. The assessee has explained the delay by filing an application dated 17th February, 2023 for condonation of delay along with supporting affidavit of the assessee and requested for condonation of delay. The contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay are reproduced as under :- "1. The assessee is illiterate lady aged 63 years. She is housewife and has no source of earning. The assessee was not aware of the assessment order dated 06.12.2022. The assessee is neither having her personal email id nor having any person conversant with email. She has mentioned email id of her family member. 2. While checking ITD portal in the proceeding Tab, the assessee's counsel came to know about the passing of order by the ld. CIT (A). 3. During the year under consideration, the rural agriculture land outside the municipal limits in which she was co-owner was compulsorily acquired by the Government of Rajasthan and the sale proceeds invested in term deposit with bank. The AO completed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 even any notice was never served to the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer also imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before the ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) did not accept the contention of assessee holding that, penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) without considering the reply of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted his written submissions, which are reproduced hereunder :- "1. The Ld. AO has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) alleging that there is no compliance on part of assessee in response to notice issued by him from time to time. But none of notices were ever received by the assessee. Also, the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 26.12.2018 was not received by the assessee. Since, the notices were never been served on the assessee, the notices are invalid and imposing penalty for invalid notices is not as per law. Assessee received a penalty order u/s 271F dated 28.05.2019 first time for AY 2011-12. Assessee did not received any notice or assessment order for the year under consideration. A letter was also submitted on 12/06/2019 to the department requesting therein to provide the original assessment order/certified copy of assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed " OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS A PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE It is also a principal of natural justice to provide an opportunity of being heard before giving any verdict. Rules of natural justice are embodied in the provision of service of notice on the party likely to be affected by a proceeding conducted and concluded under the provision of Income-tax Act, 1961. Notice is knowledge of facts which would lead a person to make enquiry. A notice of hearing is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsels of both the sides, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the revenue authorities. The only issue raised in the present appeal is upholding the order of the AO passed under section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. At the very outset, the ld. A/R submitted that the AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act alleging that there is no compliance on the part of the assessee in response to notices issued by him from time to time. But, on the contrary, it was submitted by ld. A/R that none of the notices was received by the assessee or served upon the assessee. It was submitted that since notices were never served on the assessee, therefore, order imposing penalty is liable to be quashed as per law. There is no evidence on record put on by the AO as to what efforts have been carried out by the AO to serve the said notices and there is no specific finding in the assessment order whether the assessee refused to accept the notice or was not found at the place or was not residing at that place. Simply penalty has been imposed by considering that the notices were issued. In our view, service of notice is only a formality and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
