TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred in confirming penalty in respect of even the first notice as well. We note that the written submissions are absolutely silent on why the assessee failed to comply with subsequent notices issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 10/06/2015, 15/07/2015 and 18/01/2016. The assessee has repeatedly defaulted in responding to various notices issued by the Ld. AO u/s 142(1) of the Act and the assessment order had to be passed ex-parte in absence of any response/ co-operation by the assessee. The assessee has given no plausible explanation for his recurring non-compliance to various notices issued. Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a well-reasoned view and has not erred in restricting addition to one defau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order levying penalty has been passed without confirming statutory position. The penalty order passed is bad in law. The penalty needs cancellation. ₹ 10,000/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order passed levying penalty is bad in law, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. The penalty needs cancellation. ₹ 10,000/- 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the initiation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,000/- TOTAL TAX EFFECT ₹ 10,000 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 14,93,690/-. The assessment was finalized u/s 144 of the Act assessing total income at ₹ 10,69,98,670/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, several notices were issued requisitioning the assessee s appearance, but neither the assessee nor its AR attended nor any explanation/ compliance was made in response to the notices. The details of notices issued to assessee are tabulated below. Sr. No. Section of Notice Date of issue Remarks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Form 35 filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and restricted the penalty to ₹ 10,000/- on the basis that penalty should be restricted to first default of non-appearance only and penalty cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act which remains un-compiled with on the part of the appellant. If the default is the same, penalty should be imposed for the first default only. This is in view of the fact that 271(1)(b) of the Act is of a deterrent nature and not for purpose of earning revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the case of Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT 60 taxmann.com 131 and on ITAT Ahmedabad in Shri Mahendra J. Patel v. ACIT in ITA No. 267/ Ahd/ 2016 , while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken a well-reasoned view and has not erred in restricting addition to one default based on various judicial precedents cited in the appeal order. It may not be out of place to reproduce the relevant extracts of the decision in the case of Shri Mahendra J. Patel vs. ACIT ITA No. 267/Ahd/2016, which states as below: On perusal of the above decision, we observe that if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or 142(1) of the Act, there lies a remedy with the Assessing Officer for framing best judgement assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed again and again. However, in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
