TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice dated 19/10/2016 issued to the assessee under section 142(1) produced. The first page of this reply (APB 14), a scanned copy whereof is reproduced as bears the stamp of the Assessing Officer and signatures thereon. These are dated 21/12/2016. The Department has not been able to show otherwise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee did not comply with the notice dated 19/10/2016 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon order. 2. For the sake of convenience, we take up the facts involved in ITA No.594/LKW/2017. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.594/LKW/2017 are as under:- 1. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that undersigned is of the view that the appellant has not only committed the default under the provision of section 271(1)(b) but also failed to show reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid show cause notice the appellant had given detailed reasoning for alleged noncompliance; d) after considering the said response to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer himself had taken a reasonable view by not proceeding to pass an order levying penalty; e) instead the Assessing officer, issued further notice(s) under section 142(1); and f) there was no justification, ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd accordingly the same should have been quashed. 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee has contended that the authorities below have erred in holding that there was no compliance made by the assessee to the notice dated 19/10/2016, issued under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been contended that the assessee duly filed reply (copy at APB: 14-30) dated 28/10/2016 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
