TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the provision of section 153C r.w.s 143(3)/144 of the Act. Considering the same, we find the present case the assessments were computes after scrutiny. Therefore, we find that these are not fit cases for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly ground raised by all these appeals are allowed. See Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. Assistant Director of Income [ 2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 187/A/2014, ITA NO. 197/A/2014, ITA NO. 203/A/2014, ITA NO. 204/A/2014, ITA NO. 205/A/2014, ITA NO. 207/A/2014, ITA NO. 208/A/2014, ITA NO. 212/A/2014, ITA NO. 215/A/2014, ITA NO. 229/A/2014, ITA NO. 230 TO 235/A/2014, ITA NO. 213/A/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder on the issue of the facts, we are grouped without together and adjudicated in this composite order. 4. Before us, learned counsels for the assesses brought to our notice the fact that the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act with a reasonable delay. The delay valid from few days to around 3 month only. The said delay is attributable to the non availability of the seizure papers and also due to demand for finalization of the returns in large number of group cases in the same year. Further, he mentioned that the assessments were eventually completed u/s 144 of the Act is not due to non compliance to the assessment proceedings but due to the rejection of the books of accounts. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted earlier were ignored by the AO, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be levied. Conclusion: Assessment having been made u/s 143(3) and not under s. 144, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO hence penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be levied .. ..2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO. Therefore, in such circumstances, there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. For ready reference we reproduce from the said order as under:- 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find considerable cogency in the Ld. Counsel of the assessee s submission that the show cause notice does not mentioned about the non-compliance of notice on which penalty has been levied. Hence, assumption of jurisdiction is not proper. We further find that in these cases the AO has asked explanation of questions and assessee was given only 7 days time. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee was not given proper opportunity and in the same situation this tribunal in ITA No. 4239/Del/2013 in the case of Shivaansh Advertising and Publications (P) Ltd. vide its orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led reasoning on facts and law, the penalty imposed in each of the years is quashed. The said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself. 9. Further, we have perused another Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Smt. Pratima Agarwal vide ITA No. 163/Alld/2014 for the A.Y. 2009-10 dated 26.06.2014 for identical proposition that the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not leviable when the relevant assessments proceedings were completed meaningfully under provision of section 143(3) of the Act. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal, we find that para 4 of the Tribunal order is relevant, we extract the same for the purpose of completeness of this order. It is relevant to notice that the Tribunal in this ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the same, we also allow the appeal of the assessee. All these decisions are relevant for the legal proposition that the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 142(1) for non furnishing of the documents, are not sustainable, when relevant assessments were completed meaningfully after due process of scrutiny under the provision of section 153C r.w.s 143(3)/144 of the Act. Considering the same, we find the present case the assessments were computes after scrutiny. Therefore, we find that these are not fit cases for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly ground raised by all these appeals are allowed. 10. In the result, all the 17 appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
