TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance. It is further seen that no reasoning has been given by the CIT(A) as to why the following explanation extracted by him in pages 3 & 4 in para 4 of his order cannot be accepted - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 4852 to 4855/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2014 - Diva Singh (Judicial Member) And T. S. Kapoor (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Meenakshi Vohra, Sr. DR ORDER These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order dated 29.05.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 Assessment Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment given by Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs Standard Mercantile Co.(160 ITR 613) the assessing officer held that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of notice u/s 142(1) and penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was imposed. 3.1. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that before the CIT(A) amongst others, the assessee agitated the following grounds:- (ii). The Penalty levied at ₹ 10,000/- is unjustified and unwarranted. (iii). The assessing officer was wrong in imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271(1)(b) without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3.2. The action of the AO in imposing the penalty was confirmed holding that the argument that the AR was to come from Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also seen that the returned income has been accepted by the AO vide order u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the present case is an attempt of deliberate defiance on part of the assessee. Infact the assessment having been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance. It is further seen that no reasoning has been given by the CIT(A) as to why the following explanation extracted by him in pages 3 4 in para 4 of his order cannot be accepted::- 4. During the appellate proceedings the AR of the assessee submitted that:- The assessee most respectfully begs to submit the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order for the year was passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) not under section 144 of the Act. From this fact it is crystal clear that the assessee made the compliance in the assessment proceedings as such there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was deliberately or willful. This is well supported by the judgment given by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench G in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sang Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008)115 TTJ (Delhi) 419. 11. That the law is well settled that an order imposing penalty is a result of quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven for compliance and the assessment concluded u/s 143(3). We extract the relevant portion from Manjusha Madan s case as under:- 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the Ld. Counsel of the assessee s submission that the show cause notice does not mention about the noncompliance of notice on which penalty has been levied. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction is not proper. We further find that in these cases the AO has asked explanation of questions and assessee was given only 7 days time. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee was not given proper opportunity and in the same situation this tribunal in ITA No. 4239/Del/2013 in the case of Shivaan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rescue of the assessee. 8.1 Furthermore, we find that Hon ble Apex Court in a decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 held that that An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
