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

2016 (1) TMI 748 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 748 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) - nonappearance of the assessee on 09.10.2012, for the said date notices were issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) - Held that:- The explanation of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that her sister-in-law Mrs. Anju Gupta was suffering from severe disease and had to be hospitalized on 06.10.2012. Thereafter on the date of hearing i.e. 09.10.2012, Sh. Satya Prakash Gupta “head of the family” and “father-in-law” of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In my opinion, the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when he was satisfied that there was a proper and plausible explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts delete the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 6368/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d from the assessee. The AO considered the same as the violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.01.2013, asking him to explain as to why penalty under the said section may not be levied. The so cause notice was fixed for hearing on 04.02.2013. On the said date also nobody attended, therefore, the AO held that the assessee had no explanation for the default. He, therefore, levied the penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 09.10.2012. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee did not give any such reply before the AO. However, he had taken note of this fact that the assessee had duly replied to the letters of the AO on subsequent dates. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessment proceedings were time barring in nature, therefore, the AO was in race against time, but the details required by him had not been filed and if the AO was to get all the details .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 10,000/- each for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007- 08 and deleted the penalties for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal for the assessment year 2007-08. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance on 09.10.2012 and the assessee explained properly as required u/s 273B of the Act. It was also submitted that even the ld. CIT(A) 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

e was willful defaulter and never cooperated, therefore, there was a default as per the provisions u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the penalty was rightly levied. It was contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty. 9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the AO levied the penalty for nonappearance of the assessee on 09.10.2012, for the said date notices .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as such the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. In the present case, it appears that the AO levied the penalty for 7 assessment years running from 2005-06 to 2011-12 and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the 4 assessment years i.e. the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, considering the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment year .....

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