9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke up the appeal No. 4610/Del./2015 filed by M/s. Witness Builders Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2008-09. 3. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) for all the impugned assessment year which was on account of failure to comply with the statutory notices, fixing the date of hearing on 30.11.2012. 4. The brief facts qua the levy of impugned penalty are that the assessee was working with the MDLR group of companies and were also director and share holder in some of the group companies. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was conducted at various premises of MDLR group and also at the residential premises in January, 2008. In pursuance of search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s 153A were initiated in cases of the assessee and assessment was for the impugned assessment year passed under section 144 read with section 153A. During the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) for non4 compliance of certain statutory notices by the assessee and accordingly, show cause notices was issued. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed very detail explanation, challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s very difficult to comply with all the notices in all the cases at the appointed dates, but the assessee though belatedly on some occasion duly submitted all the replies before the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings of the assessee. > lastly, it was submitted that the main controlling person, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was looking after the entire matter was detained in judicial custody since August, 2012 and was there for more than 2 years. 6 Since, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal was entrusted with all the decisions and was aware of the tax matters and documents; therefore, there was delay in collecting information and consequently making certain compliances. Thus, it was pleaded that there was a reasonable cause for delay in submitting the replies or non-compliance on the appointed date. 5. However, the ld. Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the ground that the assessee did not attend offices in response to the various notices issued or date fixed on two of the occasions. 6. The Learned CIT(Appeals) too has confirmed the said penalty after observing and holding as under- "8.3. None of the reasons given in the written submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pelling and reasonable cause for failure to comply with the statutory notices has been advanced. 8.6. While examining the matter of penalty u/s 271(1) (b) read with section 274, the only aspect that has to be examined is whether there was any reasonable cause that prevented the appellant from complying with the statutory notices issued by the AO. Here, the appellant did not comply with the statutory notices on 2 different occasions spread over a period of 3 months. The appellant could have escaped from the rigors of penalty, had the statutory notice been acknowledged and adjournment requested timely. However, the appellant chose to completely ignore the statutory notices, and therefore in the absence of a reasonable cause, became liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(b)." 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that in response to the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee has filed very-exhaustive reply before the Assessing Officer. The copy of which are appearing at pages 7 to 13 of the paper book and also pointed out that during the course of the assessment proceedings various submissions were filed which have not been properly considered. The detail of replies filed on vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plies filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that most of the compliances have been made through replies/letters sent to the Assessing Officer either by filing in the dak or through registered/speed post. This is further corroborated by details of replies filed in various group cases as referred to by Ld. Counsel before us. Ostensibly there may be a case of delay in compliance or filing of replies before AO and not personally appearing before the Assessing Officer on a particular date, but compliances in form of replies do have been filed in the course of assessment proceedings and 9 all the necessary details required for the purpose of assessment has been provided. What are required to be seen while levying penalty for noncompliance of statutory notices, is the facts and circumstances for nonappearance on the specified date, that is, whether there was any reasonable cause and the overall conduct of the assessee. The main planks for reasonable cause pleaded by the assessee has been that, firstly, the key person/group head, Shri Gopal Kumar Goyal who was entrusted with income tax matters and was looking after the entire worki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
