TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had furnished all the information and the A.O. has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the A.O. was erred in levying penalty for initial failure to comply with statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee had fully cooperated for completion of assessment proceedings. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14.- Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos. 23 to 29/Vizag/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR Respondent by : Shri M.N. Murthy Naik, DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. 3. In response to penalty notice, the assessee filed his reply on 16.12.2014 expressing difficulties in gathering the information for 7 years. The assessee further submitted that non-attendance for hearing on the date fixed for hearing is not intentional, as he was busy in collecting information sought by the A.O. in connection with the assessment proceedings. The A.O. has sought voluminous information for a period of 7 years, as such he could not able to gather all the information within a short time of 8 days to 26 days given in the notice. However, the fact remains that he had complied with all the information sought by the A.O. and the assessing officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days to 26 days to furnish huge information for a period of 7 years. Since, the information called for by the A.O. is voluminous, he could not gather all the information within a span of short period given in the notice and hence, could not appear on the date fixed for hearing, therefore, requested to delete penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention relied upon the following judgements: 1) Swarnaben M. Khanna Ors Vs. DCIT (2010) 132 TTJ 0001(UO) Ahd Trib. 2) Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 0419 Ahd Trib 3) Karnavati CIT(A), Rajahmundry Air Conditiners (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (2012) 32 CCH Ahd. Trib. 4) Pole Star Securities Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 40 CCH 0374 Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Pillala Ramakrishna Rao in ITA No.81/Vizag/2016, wherein the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, under similar set of facts has held that the explanations offered by the assessee that he could not attend as on the date of hearing because of insufficient time given by the A.O. to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the coordinate bench, therefore, the penalty levied by the A.O. may be deleted. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supporting the order of CIT(A), submitted that the A.O. has given sufficient time for the assessee to appear for hearing. The assessee neither appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, under similar set of facts has held that the explanations offered by the assessee that he could not attend as on the date of hearing because of insufficient time given by the A.O. to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below: 21. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for failure to comply with statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to offer proper explanation for non-attendance as on the date of hearing. It is the contention of the assessee that non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we are of the view that the explanations offered by the assessee that he could not attend on the dates of hearing because of insufficient time to collect voluminous information appears to be reasonable and bonafide. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to delete the penalty levied for the assessment year 2013-14. 11. In this view of the matter and also following the coordinate bench decision, in the case of Pillala Ramakrishna Rao Vs. ACIT (supra), we are of the view that the reasons given by the assessee for non-appearance for hearing as on the date of hearing appears to be reasonable and bonafide. The A.O. has given short period of 7 days to 26 days to furnish various information in connection with search assessment. Though, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
