TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the returned income was accepted in the order passed u/s 143(3) IT Act. We are of the view that penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act deserves to be cancelled if there are materials to suggest on conclusion of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer; that the Assessing Officer was, on the whole, satisfied with the overall compliances made by the assessee during proceedings before the Assessing Officer. We hereby cancel the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No:- 2530/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 16-2-2021 - SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order u/s 143(3) of ITR dated 05.12.2016. Prior to that, an order dated 26.10.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, directing the assessee to pay penalty amounting to ₹ 10,000/- on the ground that the assessee had failed to provide full submissions which were called for on hearing fixed on 01.09.2016 in the course of the assessment proceedings; and that on the said date (01.09.2016) none appeared or made any submissions. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2016 before the Ld. CIT(A) by impugned appellate order dated 01.03.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A). The aforesaid penalty amounting to ₹ 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act was confirmed. For ease of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted by the AO and finally the hearing was adjourned to 01.09.2016. However, there was no response from the appellant. The AO issued a reminder letter on 12.09.2016 and finally a show cause notice u/s 271(.l)(b) was issued by the AO on 20.09.2016 for non-compliance of the notice issued. In response to the show cause notice also, the appellant sought adjournment and finally did not iile any reply with respect to the noncompliance to the notice issued by the AO. In view of this, the AO has levied penalty of ₹ 10,000/- u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Act. 4.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has contended that the appellant had filed various details to the AO and the final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Act] was considered as good compliance by the Assessing Officer and that the defaults earlier committed should be treated as having been ignored by the Assessing Officer. For this contention he relied on orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the cases of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal), Globus Infocom Limited vs. DCIT (order dated 29.06.2016 in ITA No. 738/Del./2014 for AY 2010-11), Carreen Builders Developers vs. DCIT (order dated 20.09.2017 in ITA No. 5737/Del/2015 for for AY 2012-13). In these orders, it was held by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi that when the order is finally passed u/s 143(3) of IT Act and not u/s 144 of IT Act; it would mean that subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 2 of the assessment order, that the Assessing Officer has expressed satisfaction with the compliances made by the assessee. To quote from the assessment order, the observation of the Assessing Officer is: In compliance to the notices, Sh. Gaurav Jindal, CA authorized representative of the assessee attended for and on behalf of the assessee from time to time and furnished written submissions and details called for. These were examined and the case was discussed with the authorized representative. It can be readily inferred from this observation of the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer was, on the whole, satisfied with the overall compliances made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The satisfaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
