TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies rebut this factual position. There is further no dispute that assessee has expressed his inability to produce the relevant records sought for because of non-availability thereof. The Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the act. He added the bank deposit amount in assessee’s hands. We hold in these facts that this assessment is u/s. 143(3) and does not fall strictly to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thakkar, A.R. ORDER S. S. Godara (Judicial Member) This assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad dated 03-12-2012 in appeal no. CIT(A)- XVI/ITO/Wd. 11(3)/079/11-12 confirming penalty of ₹ 1,10,000/-, in proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. We have heard both the parties. Facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial year 2005-06. Various other additions regarding demat account etc. were also made. The Assessing Officer alleged assessee s non-operation and initiated the impugned penalty proceedings. 3. The assessee preferred quantum appeal. The CIT(A) partly accepted the same in his order dated 28-07-2009. The Assessing Officer passed consequential order on 04-09-2009 working out the total taxabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order dated 31-03-2011. 5. The CIT(A) affirms the Assessing Officer s action. 6. We heard both the parties. Relevant facts narrated hereinabove are not repeated for the same of brevity. Both the authorities below penalizes the assessee alleging his failure in complying to scrutiny notices u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 143(2) of the Act. It emerges from the assessment order that the assessee had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that an assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is a sufficient compliance of scrutiny notices. We draw support therefrom and accept assessee s argument in challenging the impugned penalty. The Revenue s submission supporting the same stands rejected accordingly. The impugned section 271(1)(b) of ₹ 1,10,000/- is deleted. 7. This assessee s appeal is allowed. Order pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
