9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. DR ORDER PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (A.M): This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2015-16/10402629 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] u/s. 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2016- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices, the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as it is the same notice which has been issued subsequently and therefore for the same default, the penalty could not be levied again and in support, reliance was place on Co-ordinate Delhi Benches decision in case of Smt. Rekha Rani V. DCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 131(Delhi-Trib). 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that even though the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant findings therein read as under: "5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), we find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 143(2) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
