TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome - HELD THAT:- We note that all these penalty notices and consequential orders were issued and passed with wrong address, which cannot be sustained. Notice u/s 271(1)(b) and 271E are unsustainable in the eyes of law as assessee did not receive any notice u/s 148 and consequential notices being 143(2) and 141(1) of the Act which were issued by Ld.AO at wrong address. Therefore, assessee could not furnish any return of income in response. In our view, notice u/s 271(1)(b) and 271E also deserves to be quashed and set aside. Notice u/s 271(1)(c), is consequential to assessment order dated 29/02/2016, which we have already held to be bad in law as passed without granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2384 to 2387/BANG/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2020 - Shri. B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals are filed by assessee against separate orders dated 21/06/2018 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Mysore in quantum pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in upholding the computing a sum of ₹ 6,55,000/- as income from Short term capital gain under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 8. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. ITA No.2385/Bang/2018 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as levying penalty u/s 271[1][c] of the Act against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was belated based on the information given by the learned ITO, Ward - 1[4], Mysor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271[1][c] of the Act requires to be cancelled. 6.2 Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied is highly excessive and Liable to be reduced substantially. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. ITA No.2386/Bang/2018 1. The orders of the authorities below imposing penalty u/s. 271[1][b] of the Act in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was belated based on the information given by the learned ITO, Ward - 1[4], Mysore in ITNS 51 that the impugned order and demand notice served on 01/09/2016 without appreciating that the appellant was not aware of the assessment proceedings taken up by the department being abroad and had obtained certified copy of the penalty order on 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the appellant was not aware of the assessment proceedings taken up by the department being abroad and had obtained certified copy of the penalty order on 01/05/2017 and certified copy of the demand notice on 15/05/2017 and thereupon, the appellant had filed the appeal on 13/06/2017, which was within time of 30 days and thus there was no delay in filing the appeal and hence, there is no requirement for filing any application seeking condonation of delay under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was not maintainable being hit by the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act as the appellant had not paid amount in equivalent to the Advance-tax without appreciating that the provisions of Section 249[4B] of the Act were wholly inapplicable since the appellant had challenged the very reopening of the assessment as well as the computation of the Capital Gains in the appeal filed before the learned CT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The [earned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the penalty u/s.271F of the Act, of ₹ 5,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appeal belatedly, as the impugned orders and notice of demand were not be communicated to assessee in time due to wrong address. Ld.CIT(A) noted that, assessee failed to file return of income within due date, and also failed to pay advance tax which was payable by her as per the provisions of section 249 (4) (b) of the Act, before filing of appeal before First appellate authority. Ld. CIT(A) therefore did not admit the appeals and dismissed it. 6. Aggrieved by orders of Ld.CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. Assessee has preferred appeals against quantum order as well as penalty orders. 7. Before us, Ld.AR submitted that, preliminary issue challenged is regarding validity of re-assessment order and penalty orders passed, without following due process of law. He submitted that, the reassessment order and penalty orders are bad in law, as no valid notice was served to assessee intimating assessment and penalty proceedings. Ld.AR submitted in written submission dated 12/06/2018 wherein the correct address of assessee has been mentioned, with details of supporting documents: 8. It is submitted by Ld.AR that none of the income tax details of assessee refers to the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of records placed before us. 11. Ground No.1, 2 8 are general in nature. Therefore does not require adjudication. 12. We note from the documents placed before us that, the notice under section 148 was served to assessee at, No. 387, Skanha , 4th Main, TK layout, Mysore. Whereas, the address, where assessee was residing as per submissions reproduced herein above at the time of sale of immovable property was, No. 723, 10th cross, 2nd stage, Siddharth Nagar, NazarabadMohalla, Mysore. We note that, notice under section 148 was issued based on information received. It is a fact that, Ld. AO before issuing notices did not verify with the details that is already available with the revenue like address mentioned on PAN card etc., filed by assessee. Ld.AO should have verified the details available with department before issuing any notice. Under such circumstances, impugned notice under section 148 issued at wrong address cannot be held to be valid, and the assessment order passed consequent to such notice deserves to be quashed. 13. The re-assessment order dated 29/2/2016, passed is without offering proper opportunity of being heard to assessee, which is not in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
