9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the interest, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is liable to be deleted. It is a fit case where penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for causing non-appearance is liable to be deleted, looking into the assessee's facts as highlighted above. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT return with ITO ALWAR whole proceeding u/s 148 is void ab initio. Therefore, the whole proceeding u/s 148 should be treated as invalid. 2) The CIT(A) has called for the remand report from the AO, which clearly indicate that the AO has never filled any ITR with the address at Alwar. The remand report also indicate that the notices were issued at different address. The CIT(A) has failed to consider the same. 3) Inspite the assessee has taken a ground of Jurisdiction in appeal (Form 35), CIT(A) failed to decide on the same and passed the order against the assessee. Without following the procedure u/s 148 4) That the notice issued u/s 148 dated 29.03.2018 and was served on the appellant on the e-filing portal is not a valid notice under the act and no physical notice was received by the assessee on or before 31.03.2018. Therefore, the same is time-barred and invalid. 5) AO through AL WER.ITO 1.2@ INCOMETAX.GOV.1N intimating about the issue of notice u/s 148 for 2011 -12 without giving any reason for reopening the case. The notice attached by him is not even signed by him therefore notice is to be treated as invalid and void ab initio. 6) Without following the procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the principles of natural justice and sound consciousness. The assessment order deserves to be quashed. 15) The CIT(A) has passed the order against the assessee simply on the ground that the Assessee has not submitted the bank statement (the bank statement was called by the department) from bank, cannot be the reason to pass the order against the assessee. 16) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer grossly erred in creating an illegal demand of Rs. 11,92,380/- against the assessee appellant. Interest U/s 234A,23B and 23C 17) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Officer grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(l)(b): 18) Notice u/s 142(1) requires clarification of the source of the depositing amount in the bank account of Rs. 3613600/-. for the same which is shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ld. AO has not consider the reply of the assessee and imposed a penalty u/s 271(l)(b) which is not valid. AO himself has stated in the order that the assessee has appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jections raised by the appellant in various paras of his order. I have noticed that the objections raised by the appellant are flimsy as the Ld. AO duly followed the procedure and the case was transferred by the Ld. Pr. CIT after passing the order u/s 127 of the Act. It is seen that the appellant was in constant touch with the A.O. and was keep pressuring the A.O. on procedural issues but has not given any explanation on the cash deposit. The behaviors of the appellant remain non-cooperative to the AO. Hence, the grounds related to procedure are dismissed. Since, the appellant has not enclosed the bank statement, for examination so the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and the additions made by the AO are confirmed. The grounds related to merit of the case are also dismissed." 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee acts as a collecting agent and there were total cash deposits of Rs. 36,13,600/- in the bank account held by the assessee towards his business as a collection agent. The Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Penalty order passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee. 2. Penalty order passed ignoring the fact that the assessee was in regular touch with the AO to get the case transferred and for the other details. 3. Not Providing Proper Opportunity in Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(1)(b) 4. Assessee has subsequently complied with the other notices and submitted the required details of compliance and in the assessment proceedings the same was considered. Therefore, it is a good compliance of the earlier notices. Therefore, no penalty should be levied. 5. Later on aggrieved by the assessment order assessee filed an appeal with CIT(A). CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without considering the facts of the case. CIT(A) has failed to consider that during the assessment assessee filed an adjournment against the notice issued on 06.12.2018 and later on replies were filed." 11. This is an appeal filed against the order levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on account non-compliance with notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 06.12.2018. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
