Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Kanhai Corporation, Arjun Exotica and Others Versus ACIT, Central Circle-1 (4) , Ahmedabad

2016 (7) TMI 825 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - defaults of not complying with notices for Assessment Year 2011-12 - Held that:- The contentions of ld. DR carry merits inasmuch as the impugned penalties were imposed on 19-12-2012 much prior to the framing of assessments on 17-1-2014. In view thereof the case laws cited by the assessee are distinguishable. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any understanding with ld. AO as tried to be canvassed. Besides in any case adjournment applications ought to have b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Ankit Talsania, AR For The Revenue : Shri Antony Pariath, Sr DR ORDER These appeals by six different assessees are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad of even date 16.05.2013, confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- in each imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the defaults of not complying with notices for Assessment Year 2011-12. Since all these appeals pertain t .....

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 assessee s representative requested to the Assessing Officer that individual cases may be taken up first and thereafter the cases of the companies and firms may be taken up. According to assessee, AO agreed for this, therefore, nobody attended the proceedings. Accordingly, it was requested to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. He further contends that the assessee was also submitted to the Assessing Officer that the required submission was being made on 18.12. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssed till 31.03.2013, even though the assessee has furnished all the details called for by the Assessing Officer. 2.2 The assessment proceedings have been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act without, reliance is placed on following cases has held that when the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act, then the non-compliance is deemed to have been waived, and accordingly, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act has been deleted by 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

ore also, penalty could not have been levied in pursuant to the provisions of Section 273B of the Act. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand vehemently contends that the Assessing Officer was right in imposing the penalty in question as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. No such understanding as claimed by the assessee emerges from the record, besides if there was any semblance of any merit in assessee s contention, these facts should .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

utory notices. Attention is drawn to the observations of ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) in this behalf in the lead case of Kanhai Corporation: Observations of ld. AO 5. The submission of the assessee is not acceptable. The survey in the case of assessee group was conducted on 21.09.2010, assessee filed its returns on 28.09.2011 and the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17.09.2012. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17.10.2012 asking the assessee to furnish details on 30.10.20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, the assessee ought to have submitted the details called for. However, for reasons best known to the assessee, it opted not to comply with the terms of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee has no reasonable cause to offer for the inordinate delay in complying to the terms of statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned is satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Observations of ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot u/s 144 of the Act. IN those cases the ITAT held that since the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act, the AO had waived the noncompliance. In the instant case the assessment has not been completed as yet hence it cannot be presumed that the AO has waived the non-compliance. Rather the reverse is true that the AO has held that the appellant has not bothered to comply with the notice deliberately and made observations about misplaced understanding which was never 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version