TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revented the assessee from complying with the notice under reference or filing letters to seek adjournments is acceptable as we find that in the case of Sh. Gobind Kumar Goyal (2017 (8) TMI 1339 - ITAT DELHI) cited by the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on similar set of circumstances.. The said case is also one of the case of 'MDLR' Group - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 4499 to 4502/Del/2015, ITA Nos. 4503 to 4509/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Department by Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by two ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is otherwise also based on factual misappreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and, complete misinterpretation of the provisions contained in section 271(l)(b) of the Act. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has otherwise too confirmed the penalty without providing fair, reasonable and meaningful opportunity and as such order passed is contrary to the principles of natural justice and, therefore a nullity. It is therefore prayed that the penalty-levied u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act of ₹ 20,000/- and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and, appeal of the appellant company be allowed. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. Gobind Kumar Goyal (supra) cited by the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on similar set of circumstances. The said case is also one of the case of 'MDLR' Group. The relevant para of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gobind Kumar Goyal (supra) is reproduced as under: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that in the case of Jawala Prashad Aggarwal, which is also one of the cases of the MDLR Group, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In the said case also due to non-compliance of statutory notices on two occasions penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) Act was levied by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt on part of the assessee. Show cause notices issued for initiating penalty proceedings should be specific and without any ambiguity, because the assessee while giving the explanation should be aware of the charge for which penalty is being initiated and can give his specific rebuttal. Such vague notice is fatal to the initiation of the proceedings itself. Further from the perusal of the assessment order, it is gathered that the assessee did not attend the proceedings on 20.11.2012 and 30.11.2012. The assessing officer further mentions that on 5.12.2012, Shri Vishal Mehta, AR along with other authorized persons appeared before him and submitted that non- compliance on the part of the assessee on the said date were due to the fact that grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 working of the group was in judicial custody in some criminal proceedings and the entire group and family members were engaged in ongoing court proceedings for his early release and various employees were leaving the group further accentuating the problems; secondly, more than 300 group assessments were initiated in the wake of search proceedings which were simultaneously going on, therefore, it was difficult to comply to the various notices on short dates; lastly, it has been strongly pleaded before us, that the compliances had been made through replies filed through dak or reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
