9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eupon, assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were in progress. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 19.11.2012 along with questionnaire to be complied with on 26.11.2012. The assessee could not attend the hearing and also not filed the necessary documents. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and finally, levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each in all the Assessment Years. The CIT (A) confirmed the levy of penalty. Against which, the assessee is in appeal by taking the following grounds of appeal :- "1. That Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in-spite of the fact that no reasonable opportunity was granted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings. Therefore, we do not find these cases to be fit for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Such penalties are, therefore, deleted in all the cases, the facts, mutatis mutandis, being exactly similar in all of them. 8. In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed." Similarly, penalty has been deleted by ITAT, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in the case of Ms. Manjusha Madan vs. DCIT, Central Circle 21, New Delhi while deciding ITA Nos.4698 to 4703/Del/2013 in its order dated 31.01.2014. The relevant paras of the order are reproduced as under :- "7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the Ld. Counsel of the assessee's submission that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y with such notice cannot be said to be a default which may justify the levy of penalty under section 271(1)((b) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is cancelled." 8. Furthermore, we also note that assessment in this case were completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, it does mean the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance. The decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee as above also come to the rescue of the assessee. 8.1 Furthermore, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 held that that "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
