9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our considered opinion, the conduct of the assessee in this case is not contumacious - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 26.06.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and facts in confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.03.2019 was issued by ACIT, Circle 40 (1) to the appellant to file ITR. In response, appellant e filed ITR under section 148 on 29.04.2019 declaring income of Rs. 41,42,690/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.11.2019 to furnish certain details for the assessment year under consideration for which date of compliance was fixed for 08.11.2019. 4. In response, the appellant vide letter dated 08.11.2019 requested the Ld. AO to adjourn the hearing as her authorized representative was out of Delhi to attend the marriage function of his relative. 5. Subsequently, the ld. Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed in this case on the failure of the assessee to comply with the notice dated 06.11.2019 though it is also recorded that on 08.11.2019 assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to adjourn the hearing as her Authorised Representative was out of Delhi. When the reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice is crystal clear, assessee need not to be visited with the rigours of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In this regard, we note that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 has held that assessee may not be visited with rigours of penalty if the assessee s conduct is not found to be contumacious. In our considered opinion, the conduct of the assessee in this case is not contumaciou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
