Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (5) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to file the details on the given data in the notice. However, the assessee duly complied with the requirements on the subsequent dates because of which the assessment was completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore both the lower authorities were not justified in levying and confirming the penalty u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Act at ₹ 10,000/- in each case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 798 to 804/Ind/2016, ITA Nos. 805 to 811/Ind/2016, ITA Nos. 812 to 818/Ind/2016 And ITA Nos. 819 to 825/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2018 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For The Appellants : Shri Ashish Goyal And Shri N.D. Patwal For The Respondent : Shri K.G. Goyal ORDER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relevant challans were on record of learned ITAT ? After hearing the parties, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to verify about the deficit court fees which was paid on 11.8.2016 and thereafter decide the appeals of the assessee on merits in accordance with law. 4. Complying with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, we have verified the deposit of deficit court fee and find that the assessee has already deposited the difference of appeal fee on 11.8.2016 and accordingly proceed to decide these appeals on merit. 5. In all these appeals, the common ground raised is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for default of noncompliance. 7. Felt aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but there also the assessee neither appeared on the dates of hearing nor filed any written submissions. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, observing that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeals, dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine. Now the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. At the outset of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that it has been consistently held by various judicial pronouncements including the decisions of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal that in case the assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing Officer to levy penalty. 12. We find that in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh (supra), ITAT, Delhi Bench G has held as under :- Where assessee had not complied with notice under section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. 13. We further find that the coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Hemant Kumar Soni (supra) has held as under :- .... in this matter, the assessments have been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, therefore, no penalty can be levied if the assessments have been completed u/s. 143(3) and there is subsequent compliances in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliances and default committed earlier were ignored. Therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was deleted by various Tribunals. In the case of Akhil Bhartiya Parthmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del.), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s. 142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) and not u/s. 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO, therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... these appeals. 15. Respectfully following the above decisions of the corodinate Benches of the Tribunal as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the case wherein it is clearly emanating from record that no search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee and proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated and the assessee filed the return in compliance with the notice u/s 153C of the Act and also furnished the reply to various queries raised by the Assessing Officer as appearing at pages 9 to 11 of the paper book. It is also evident that the assessee was given very little time to furnish long list of requirements and there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for being unable to file the details on the g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates