TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no case for the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA Nos. 4678 to 4683/Del./2013, ITA No. 4755/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2014 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri B. C. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Srivastava, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Sudha Kumari, CIT DR and Smt. Parvinder Kaur, Senior DR ORDER Per B. C. Meena, Accountant Member : All these appeals filed by the assessee emanate from the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 27.05.2013 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and dated 28.05.2013 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Circle 21, New Delhi, the ITAT, Delhi Bench D , New Delhi in its order dated 31.01.2014 has deleted the penalty and the relevant paras of the order read as under :- 6. Having heard the parties in the light of the material placed on record, we find that firstly, even as per the penalty orders, it has been observed that the notices u/s 142 (1) of the Act were issued on 19.11.2012, for 26.11.2012, giving a very short time of only six days. Moreover, as to when these notices were served, rather as to whether such notices were served at all, does not find mention in the penalty orders. Thus, the assessee was not provided sufficient time to respond to the notice. 7. Further, a perusal of the assessment orders shows that there is no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced before us. The penalty had been levied by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of the notice dated 8.11.2010. From the assessment order, it is evident that the notice under section 142(1)/143(2) dated 8.11.2010 alongwith the detailed questionnaire was issued fixing the case for 18.11.2010. These details have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 2 page 1 of the assessment order. Thus, total ten days time was allowed from the date of issue of the notice. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the date on which such notice was served upon the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the time of less than ten days allowed by the Assessing Officer for complying with the detailed questionnaire cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Similarly, in the cases of Roop Kishore Madan vs. DCIT, Central Circle 21, New Delhi in ITA Nos.4743 to 4749/Del/2013 dated 30.01.2014 and ITAT, Delhi Bench G , New Delhi in the case of Sanya Hospital Diagnostic vs. DCIT, Central Circle 21, New Delhi Anr. in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
