9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, who has duly communicated the change of its name and address of its registered office and consequently change in TAN particulars were also carried out by the Revenue department in the records, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law on this score only. Delay in issuing notice - Hon ble Delhi High Court in Kareemul Hajazi vs. State of NCT of Delhi [ 2011 (1) TMI 1596 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] held that the period of six months prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act ought to be treated as reasonable period for issuance of such show-cause notice. So, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly concluded that even show cause notice has been issued with inordinate delay and as such, penalty is not sustainable. Since company known as I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical ground as under :- Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deciding that no valid notice was issued and served upon the assessee before imposition of penalty without going into the merits of the issue involved and overlooking the valid service of notice upon the assessee? 3. For the sake of brevity, since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the aforesaid appeals, except the difference in amount, facts of ITA No. 3377/Del/2015 for AY 2006-07 are taken for the disposal of the appeals. Assessee company was originally known as Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. and has changed its name and address of registered office, which were duly intimated and resultantly change in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 97,44751/- u/s 271C for FY 2007-08 and Rs. 3,55,000/- for FY 2005-06, Rs. 99,900/- for FY 2006-07 and Rs. 12,38,700/- for FY 2007-08 u/s 272A(2) (c)/(k) of the Act in AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 5. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeals before the ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the penalties vide impugned orders by accepting the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has approached the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Undisputedly, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stainable in the eyes of law on this score only. 10. Furthermore, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly taken into account period of delay in initiating the penalty by relying upon the decisions rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in PR Associates v. CIT-II in ITA No. 1378/PN/2009 dated 14.11.2011 and CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.- 291 ITR 244 (Raj.). Undisputedly, survey operation at the premises of assessee was taken place on 21.01.2008 on which date the defaults under relevant clauses of section 272A was noticed but penalty proceedings were initiated on 07.01.2013 by issuing a notice by JCIT, Range 50, New Delhi in the name of Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd.. So, the period of delay according to calculation approved by coordinate B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
