TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted. In the light of this undisputed fact of the case, it cannot be said that the assessee did not comply with the notices served upon him by the Assessing Officer. We further find that the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) do not make it compulsory for the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty in such cases of technical lapse as the word used are “may direct” for imposition of penalty. Since, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the time of hearing, the application for adjournment was received on behalf of the assessee. As no cogent reason was given in the adjournment application, the same was rejected and we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing ld. D.R. 3. The Assessing Officer while imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act has observed as under:- It is evident from the above, that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. This action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by ld. CIT (A). 4. After hearing the ld. D.R. and perusing the record, we find that paragraph nos. 2,3 and 4 of the assessment order would read as under:- 2. In response to the notices issued, Shri Shaishav D Mehta, C.A., duly authorized by the assessee attended from time to time. The assessee has furnishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total income as per statement of income ₹ 299050/- Total Assessed income ₹ 299050/- 5. It is apparent from the above that the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and furnished the details as called for by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
