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

2016 (9) TMI 510 - ITAT INDORE

2016 (9) TMI 510 - ITAT INDORE - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non comply with notice u/s 142(1) - Held that:- The assessee was given show cause notice u/s 142(1) was issued alongwith detailed questionnaire on 19.11.2012, requiring the assessee to furnish in writing some specified information on or before 29.11.2012. On the said date, the assessee did not attend the proceedings nor filed the request of adjournment. The AO has given show cause notice on 01.02.2013, as to why the penalty of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom 50 District Offices all over Madhya Pradesh. The Officer incharge Mr. Lalit Chaturvedi had verbally informed the AO and requested for adjournment. - Thus, it is seen that the counsel of the assessee was preoccupied with hearing before Tribunal, hence, the assessee could not appear before the AO on specified date. Further, the information was to be collected from 50 locations spread all over M.P. State, hence, it could not be produced on the stipulated date. It is also noticed that in su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ailure of the assessee to comply with such notice cannot be said to be a default which may justify the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2015 - Dated:- 2-8-2016 - SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Written submissions For The Respondent : Shri Mohd. Javed, Sr. DR ORDER PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/- without considering the full facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Government of M.P. Undertaking. As per the penalty order passed by the A.O for the A. Y 2005-06, it was stated that during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the A. Y. 2005-06, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 19.11.2012 requiring the assessee to furnis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or non-attendance/noncompliance on the said date. Thereafter, a show cause notice for penalty/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 01.02.2013 was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to show cause on or before 11.02.2013 as to why penalty of ₹ 20,000/- should not be levied upon the assessee for the non-compliance of a statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Again none attended nor any reply was filed on or before the specified date i.e. 11.02.2013. It is important here to .....

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, 1961. Therefore, the AO directed the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum of ten thousand rupees for assessment year 2005-06. 4. Aggrieved by imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the return of income was submitted on 29th October, 2005 with Audited Accounts and Tax Audit Report showing total income of ₹ 36,20,59,300/-, tax on which was fully paid. The case was selected unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpliance to the said notice. A letter from the Assessing Officer dated 19th November 2012, giving information regarding approval, notice u/s 142(1), notice u/s 143(2) with the reasons for re-opening of the case from the file dated 23rd March 2012, was received only on 27th November, 2012, fixing the date on 291h November 2012. The counsel and the person incharge were present on the said date and it was personally requested to the Assessing Officer to give an adjournment to submit the detailed re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egular in attending all the matters with the income Tax Department. The ld. AO has not given satisfaction so as to state that the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to comply with the said notice whereas our Corporation is regularly complying with all the requirement of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Department regularly. There was no such default in this regards in the past. However, the ld. CIT(A) after discussing the reasons in the orders has confirmed the penalty as imposed 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

the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. We find that Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under various provisions of sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure. The word reasonable cause has not been defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, it has been interpreted by the various Courts. What would constitute reasonable cause, cannot be laid down with precision and each case would have to be tested on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r commission, is with reasonable cause or excuse or there is absence of culpable mental state by this amendment in 1986, the onus of proving the existence of reasonable cause for the default shifted to tax payer. As per Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sub clause (b) of sub Section (1) of Section 271, 271-B……,Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271D,….., no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r inaction or want of bona fides. In the case of Woodward Governors India Private Limited vs. CIT, (2001)118 Taxman,433 (Del). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has expressed expression sufficient cause . Therefore, in the context of penalty provisions, the words reasonable cause would mean a cause that is beyond the control of assessee. In CWT vs. Jagdish Prasad Chowdhary, AIR 58, it was held that the reasonable cause means a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee; reasonable cause ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (S.C.) has laid down the following conditions for imposing the penalty. Penalty can be levied only if the assessee acted deliberately. Power to levy the penalty is discretionary and penalty cannot be levied merely because it is lawful to do so. No penalty can be levied for technical and venial breach of provisions and no penalty can be levied where the breach of provisions flows from bona fide belief of the assessee. 9. Now coming to facts .....

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