9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Aayushi Ajmani, CA For the Respondents : M. Barnwal, Sr. DR ORDER Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM These four appeals have been preferred by the above captioned assessees and have been filed against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)} wherein he has upheld the imposition of penalties u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases although the penalty proceedings had been initiated u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for alleged non-compliance, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment orders u/s. 143(3) of the Act and not u/s. 144 of the Act meaning thereby that the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and the default committed earlier was condoned by the Assessing offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es imposed should be deleted. 4. Per contra, the Ld. SR. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supported the levy of penalty and submitted that no reasonable cause had been demonstrated by the assessees for failure to comply with the statutory notices and, therefore, the penalty levied was legally correct and that a hyper technical view should not be taken and further that the subsequent pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders that the claim of the assessees that no penalty is leviable since the assessment orders had been issued u/s. 143(3) was not acceptable as the impugned penalty had been levied for specific defaults on specific dates. We are of the considered opinion that we are bound by the judicial precedent laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
