TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shrawat, Judicial Member And Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee(s) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, AR. For the Revenue : Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr. DR. ORDER Per N.S. Saini, Accountant Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad dated 15.3.2011 for the Asstt.Year 2007-08. 2. The sole ground of appeal taken in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- levied by the AO under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has observed in his penalty order that the assessee has not complied with the notices under sections 143(2)/142(1) of the Act, details of such instances are s under: 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to comply with the notices u/s.142(1)/143(2) of the Act, the onus lies on him to show cause sufficiently for not levying the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to show cause as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act should not be levied, he levied penalty at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- per failure, and thereby levied penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 6. The assessee in the written submission filed before us has submitted as under: i) Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 22-09-2008 issued for the intimation to the appellant for selection of the scrutiny. ii) Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 07-01-2009 along with question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound the assessing officer has imposed penalty of ₹ 50000/- u/s. 271(1) (b) of the Act, considering five defaults committed by the assessee. 7. On the other hand, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We find that in the similar circumstances, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, wherein one of us (N.S. Saini, Accountant Member) was a Member constituting the Bench, deleted penalty by order passed in the case of Sardarmal Kothari Vs. ACIT, in ITA No.210/Mds/2012 dated 8.3.2013, and has held as under: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai, dated 30.8.2012 for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. Asst. Director of Income Tax (115 TTJ 419) and the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Swarnaben M. Khanna Others v. DCIT (132 TTJ 1). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Counsel for the Assessee reiterates the submissions made before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submits that there is no justification in levying penalty, especially when the assessment was made under sec.143(3) of the Act and not under sec.144 of the I.T. Act. 5. Departmental Representative supported the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
