Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1285 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 1285 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - bonafide belief - CIT(A) deleted penalty in part - Held that:- CIT(A having been satisfied to quash penalty in two out of the 7 years infact should have quashed the penalty proceedings in all the years. When the admitted facts are that the seized documents were common to all the group cases numbering 120 in all and at the relevant point of time the cases were partially in Nagpur and partially in Delhi and the counsels infact were fac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch of the years and allow the appeals of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .Nos.-4842-4846/Del/2013 - Dated:- 22-7-2015 - SMT DIVA SINGH AND SH. J.S.REDDY, JJ. For The Appeellant : None For The Respondent : Sh.Ravi Jain, CIT DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present five appeals have been filed by the assessee pertain to 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessment years wherein consolidated order dated 28.05.2013 for 2005-06 to 2011-12 Assessment Years has been passed by CIT(A)-XXXI. The co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee. However, considering the material available on record, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeals ex-parte qua the assesseeappellant on merits after hearing the Ld. CIT DR who placed reliance on the submissions in writing on record placed by Dr. Sudha Kumari, CIT DR. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation was conducted on the case of the assessee who is described as Shiv Vani Group on 06.01.2011. The case subsequently was centralize .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act that within the time prescribed in the notice dated 07.03.2012, no response was given by the assessee penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was initiated and the assessee was show caused why in each of the years since the assessee failed to give any reply penalty should not be imposed. Since no reply was given despite opportunity penalty @ ₹ 10,000/- was imposed for each of the years under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee came in appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessees in the group and at the time of issuance of notice u/s 142(1) the entire group cases were not fully centralized at Central Circle, New Delhi. It was submitted that most of the group cases were assessed to tax earlier at Nagpur. As a result of this, the counsel of the assessee who was to come had to come from Nagpur. Apart from this, it has also been stated that the notice u/s 142(1) for the specific date was not served at F- 315, Lado Sarai, New Delhi; neither at the registered off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h by the counsel on behalf of the assessee. It was submitted that there are around 120 assessee in the group which had been assessed at Central Circle-11, New Delhi and immediately after centralization of the group cases the return was filed. At this juncture it may not be out of place to reproduce the following extract from the assessee s submission on record:- 9. That the assessee group is assessed to tax from many years and they had fully co-operated with the department in assessments proceed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sang Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008) 115 TT J (Delhi) 419. 11. That the law is well settled that an order imposing penalty is a result of quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. No penalty should be imposed if the assessee was acting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or when the breach flows from a bonafied belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. 4.1. Considering these facts, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm penalty for 5 years out of the 7 years holding as under:- 5. Determination 5.1 I have considered the submissions of the AR and the penalty order. No reasonable cause has been sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version