TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the fraud conducted on the assessee. These facts were stated before the assessing officer. The fact also shows that assessee is an individual is about 63 years and having a very meagre sources of the income. AO has mentioned in the penalty order that notices were issued to the assessee on 2 May 2013, 2 August 2013, 10 September 2013, 1 October 2013 and 17 October 2013 however it is disputed by the assessee that no such notices have been received by the assessee. Even otherwise the assessment order has been passed by AO u/s 144 of the income tax act - as the assessee itself has denied that he has entered into any such transaction of depositing some in cash or through clearing in his bank account for last two years naturally, assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in confirming penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the income Tax Act imposing the penalty of ₹ 80,000/-. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has passed the order without going through the facts and circumstances of the case and without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the penalty order to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the penalty levied u/s 271 (l)(b) of the Act has grossly erred in failing to appreciate that alleged notices were not served on the appellant and hence levying of penalty was unsustainable in law. 4. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came forward and, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer estimated 5% of the credit in the bank account other than cash amounting to ₹ 16,80,00,000/- and determined the income of ₹ 84,04,645/-out of the above unexplained deposit other than in cash. He further estimated the profit from regular business of ₹ 2,50,000/-. A further addition of cash deposit of ₹ 13,18,455/- was made. Accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 99,73,119/- by passing an order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act on 2.03.2014. 4. As assessee did not appear on 8 different occasions in response to the notices issued, the learned AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. In respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the penalty. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. AR submitted that assessee is carrying on his business under the Proprietorship style of M/s. G. H. Associates. He submitted that he has not operated the bank account for the last more than three years and, therefore; same was declared in-operative. He further stated that assessee is a senior citizen and, therefore, did not pay attention to the same. He suddenly came to know about the operation in his bank account by the notice of the Assessing Officer. On enquiry with the bank, he came to know that one Mr. Gurdev Singh, who has been alleged to authorize the bank account is operating the account. Therefore, assessee made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned assessing officer on eight different occasions and therefore the penalty has been levied of Rs. 80,000 u/s 271 (1) (b) of the act. It was further stated that the assessee has failed to show any sufficient or reasonable cause for such nonappearance before the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the paper book submitted by the learned authorised representative. The fact shows that starting from 2 May 2013 to 14 February 2014 the learned assessing officer fix the date of hearing on 18 different occasions and the assessee failed to comply with those notices and therefore the penalty u/s 271 (1) (b) of the act was levied of Rs. 80,000 for eig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer u/s 144 of the income tax act. Further as the assessee itself has denied that he has entered into any such transaction of depositing some in cash or through clearing in his bank account for last two years naturally, assessee looking at his age as well as the smallness of the business, first approached the police authorities by making a complaint. In view of this we find that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause with the assessee, irrespective of the addition made in the assessment order, for failure to comply with the notices to appear before the learned assessing officer. In view of the above facts we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the learned assessing officer to delete the penalty u/s 271 (1) (b) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
