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

2015 (5) TMI 1055 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (5) TMI 1055 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) - Held that:- Neither the A.O. nor the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has made out a case for sustaining the penalties. Accordingly, the penalties in all these assessment years for all the assessees are cancelled. See Swarnaben M. Khanna vs. D.C.I.T. [2009 (12) TMI 669 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2543/Ahd/2011 - Dated:- 15-5-2015 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER.) For 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

T. Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s.142(1) dated 3-2-2010 and 24-5-2010.The said notices were not complied with. Therefore, the A.O. levied penalty of ₹ 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Against the said assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Coordinate Bench have taken view that where the assessee after default of first notice attends the proceedings subsequently no penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is leviable. 6. On the contrary Sr. D. R. vehemently opposed the submission of the assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material and relevant reports. We find that the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). However, it is not disputed that the assessment pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under sec.142(1) was issued to the four assessees for Assessment Year 2006-07 only and not for any other assessment years. No notice under sec. 1412(1) was issued to these assessees in respect of other assessment years. So far as letters requiring compliance issued by the Assessing Officer on 14-8-2007 / 17-8-2007 are concerned, it is noticed that except in the case of Shri Kaushal M. Khanna, the letters did not mention that compliance is required to be made u/s.142(1). Before levying penalty u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-2007 in some cases and compliance were required to be made by 24-8-2007. Thereafter the A.O. proceeded to initiate the penalty proceedings. In our considered view, it is against the principles of natural justice as no reasonable opportunity is given to them for making compliance of the information sought. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the compliance sought by the AO. Vide letter dated 14-8-2007 containing five pages from Shri Kaushal M. Khanna as similar compliance was sought by him .....

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