9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2012 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 respectively. Shri S.M. Surana and Sunil Surana, Ld. Authorized Representatives appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S.M. Das Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 2. Since the facts and circumstances are identical in all the appeals, same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We first take up the appeal of assessee in ITA No.559/Kol/2014 relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 as lead case. The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- 3. Inter-connected solitary issue raised by assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer passed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been continuous non compliance to the notice issued. Further, during the am as well as penalty proceeding no such plea of wife's illness has been taken while making continuous non compliance except in the letter dated 30th November, 2011, when the assessment was about to be time barred. The assessee being a senior Govt. Doctor, who was attending to his duties during this period cannot take plea of wife's illness for not making compliance to Income tax proceedings. In view of the above, it is held that the assessee has not complied to the notices issued without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) is confirmed." Being aggrieved by this, assessee came in second appeal before us on the following grounds:- "1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Hon'ble ITAT was pleased to condoned the delay after considering the illhealth of assessee's wife. The ld. AR further submitted that the issue may be decided on merit. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates to the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer due to non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The AO initiated and imposed penalty under the provision of Sec. 271(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently the action of AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Under the provision of Income Tax Act, penalties are leviable on account of several reasons and one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain look of the aforesaid provision shows that penalty will not be imposed on the assessee if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. Now coming to the case on hand, it is not in doubt that the wife of assessee was suffering from cancer as evident from the order of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No.1397, 1399, 1401 & 1403/Kol/2014 for AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide order dated 05.11.2014. The relevant operative portion of the order is reproduced below:- "... First of all it is immaterial to discuss, whether assessment order was served through affixture validly or not but the assessee obtained the copy of assessment order from the AO for the first time and filed appeal within the limitation period after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
