TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 1-9-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M. For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Smt. Shaveta Nakara Datta, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J. M. All the appeals by the assessee are directed against the common orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi, dated 1st September, 2014 for the A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, 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 sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 2007-08 and deleted the penalty on the same reasoning for A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the common order 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. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi in ITA. Nos. 6403 6404/Del./ 2014 for Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 assessee company had to be hospitalized due to heart-attack and therefore, there were non-compliance 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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) and submitted that the reasons given by the assessee for non-compliance have not been disputed by the Ld. CIT(A) which clearly disclosed reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notices. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeals for three years each in both the impugned orders and on the same reasoning and explanation, the Ld. CIT(A), cancelled the penalty for two years. Meaning thereby, the explanation offered by the assessee has been accepted that no penalty is leviable. He has relied upon the common orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. Meaning thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, he should not have taken different view for one year on the same reasoning. In cases of Mrs. Usha Gupta etc., and Saraswati Resorts Pvt. Ltd., and another (supra), on the same reasoning, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) have been cancelled by the Tribunal. It, therefore, 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, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
