9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is not only illegal but also against the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and common ground is raised therein, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we take up appeal No. 589/Del./2015 first. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out u/s. 132(1) of the Act at the business premises of the company M/s. Asia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Samir Thukral Group of Companies and residential premises of the directors on 28.03.2011. Notice u/s. 153A was issued to assessee and notice u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed person attended the hearing on 20/12/2012 and submitted part information; and also sought time for submission of remaining information. Assessee was asked to furnish information in phases as and when ready for which next date was fixed for 28/12/2012; that the authorized person attended the hearing on 28/12/2012 also with part information ready for submission, however no hearing was allowed, as the Assistant commissioner advised him that he was busy in some time barring cases and unable to attend and allowed next date on 31/12/2012, that this fact is not mentioned in penalty order, being delay on part of Assessing Officer; that the A/R of the assessee further attended on 31.12.2012 and reply in some of the group cases was submitted; that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing prevented the appellant to seek the copies of seized material at earlier stage. We do not agree with this observation of the AO in view of the contention of the assessee that the assessee had already made requests for the same vide letters dated 06.04.2011 and 24.05.2012,which fact appears to have been ignored by the authorities below. The contention of huge quantum of work with respect to same cause of action in other group of cases, in the attending facts and circumstances can also not be ruled out. Moreover, the assessment orders in the present cases have been passed by the AO u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) and therefore, in view of the decision relied by assessee in case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust, 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act. 9. In view of above discussion, we do not find cogent reason to observe any willful default on the part of the assessee or non-cooperative attitude with the department. Therefore, we find no justification to sustain the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. 10. Since similar facts are permeating through in all the remaining two appeals, our findings reached in ITA No. 589/Del./2015 in earlier part of this order, shall apply mutatis mutandis in rest two appeals of the assessee, which also deserve to be allowed. 11. In the result, all the three appeals of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
