Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Smt. Neeru Gupta Versus The ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi

2017 (9) TMI 466 - ITAT DELHI

Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) - non compliance to notice under section 143(2)/142(1) - Held that:- It appears that assessee has disclosed the reasonable cause for failure to comply with the statutory notice and on the same reasoning, the Ld. CIT(A), cancelled the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act for two years in both the appeals. Therefore, following the rule of consistency, the Ld. CIT(A) should have cancel the penalty in this year as well. We, accordingly, set aside th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that A.O. issued notice under section 143(2)/142(1) fixing the case for hearing on 11th January, 2013 and none had attended that date. The assessee submitted in the written submissions that said notice had not been received by them till 11th January, 2013. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that A.O. followed-up the non-compliance to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce of the said notices. The Ld. CIT(A) however, noted that the assessee did not explain these facts before the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that during assessment proceedings which are time barring in nature, the details required by the A.O. were not filed on time. In case details are filed at the last movement, the A.O. would be having no time to process the information received. The reasons given by the assessee did not explain the total non-compliance. The Ld. CIT(A) however, noted that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for all the seven years as noted above. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Learned Counsel for the Assessee seeks adjournment which is rejected. 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. Considering the facts of the case in the light of submissions of the Ld. D.R, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT, Delhi E Bench in the group cases of M/s. Macadam Road Makers P. L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In ITA.No.6404/Del./2014 (A.Y. 2009-2010), the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the A.O. has issued notice under section 143(2)/ 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 fixing the case for hearing on 11th January, 2013 and none had attended on that date. The assessee submitted in the written submissions that said notice had not been received by them till 11th Januar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce on 5th August, 2013 and fixed the case for hearing on 27th August, 2013. Again there were no compliance. The A.O. therefore, levied the penalty of ₹ 10,000 for each of the three assessment years. 4. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that Smt. Abha Gupta, daughter-in-law of the Principal Officer of the assessee company namely Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta has to be hospitalized on 11th January, 2013. Further, he submitted that Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta, Principal Officer of the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee did not explain the total non-compliance. The Ld. CIT(A) however, noted that there is a merit in levying the penalty in spite of certain procedural deficiencies pointed out by the assessee. However, levying penalty for three years, in the view of the Ld. CIT(A), would be harsh on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty for A.Y. 2009-2010 under appeal but penalty for A.Ys. 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were deleted. The common order is passed for all these t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee-company himself suffered from heart-attack and had to be hospitalized. The whole family were disturbed. Therefore, there were no compliance. The Ld. CIT(A) given the same finding as have been given in ITA.No.6404/Del./2014 and confirmed the levy of penalty for assessment year under appeal i.e., 2009- 2010, however, deleted the similar penalty levied for A.Ys. 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012 in the common order. 6. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat no penalty is leviable. He has relied upon the common order of ITAT, SMC Bench, in the case of Smt. Usha Gupta etc., vs. ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi in ITA.Nos.6368 & 6371/Del./ 2014 etc., decided on 4th November, 2015 in which the A.O. levied the penalty for seven assessment years under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act and the Ld. CIT(A), deleted the penalty for four years. Considering the explanation of assessee to be proper, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty for the remaining .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version