Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Rajendra G. Parikh Versus DCIT, Central Circle-4, Mumbai

2016 (8) TMI 456 - ITAT MUMBAI

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Held that:- While levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act the assessee was issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 04/09/2012, fixing the compliance by the assessee on 10/09/2012. It has not been mentioned as to when the notice was served upon the assessee. It is also noted that during that period, as explained before us, the assessee was suffering from ailment, meaning thereby, sufficient time/opportunity for compliance was not provided to the assessee. This .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o delete the penalty, imposed upon the assessee. Thus, the impugned appeals are allowed in favour of assessee. - ITA NOs.6944 to 6950/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 20-6-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri Neel Khandelwal For The Revenue : Shri B.S. Bist-DR ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) This bunch of seven appeals is by the assessee against the impugned orders all dated 17/09/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 18/02/2016 for ready reference and analysis:- These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai {(in short CIT(A) }, dated 30.05.2014 for the assessment years 2005- 06 to 2011-12, passed against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short AO ) u/s 271(1)( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Ms. Nidhi Patel, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf ofthe Assessee and by Shri K Mohandas, Senior Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Since, common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed together by this order. 3.1. During the course of hearing detailed arguments have been made by Ms. Nidhi Patel, learned counsel of the assessee, assailing the order o .....

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 company had to surrender its license to Reserve Bank of India. It was further submitted that income tax search had taken place in the case of company and in pursuance to the same assessment proceedings of seven years had been commenced by the Income Tax department, and the assessee company had no staff or infrastructure to take care of such a voluminous work of collection of huge details and documents for seven years and making representation before the AO. The financial condition of the com .....

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 assessee to respond. Under such circumstances the AO did not give proper opportunity of hearing. Further, in any case, subsequently, the assessee had sincerely attended and submitted whatever details and documents were available with the assessee, which is evident from this fact that assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, and therefore, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). In support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

compliance on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty was rightly levied by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 3.3. We have gone through the facts of the case brought before us. It is noted that in pursuance to the search, the assessment proceedings of seven years were commenced by the Income Tax Department. The admitted facts on record are that the assessee company was a sick company, and was under the scheme of BIFR. We have further noted that it has been stated by the AO while levying 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 date for hearing on 10.09.2012. If, we exclude Saturday and Sunday and the time taken for dispatch and delivery of the notice, the assessee was left with hardly two or three day time, even if the notice was duly and expediently served upon the assessee. Further there is no case made out by the AO of any other non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Rather, it is noted that subsequently details and documents were filed by the assessee to the AO on the basis of which assessment proceeding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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