TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the ratio laid down in Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shikshack Sangh Bhawan trust s [ 2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] case squarely applies to the facts of this batch of cases. We, therefore, find that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the act cannot be sustained. We accordingly direct the Ld. AO to delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 601 to 603/Del/2015, 583 to 585/Del/2015, 586 to 588/Del/2015, 592 to 594/Del/2015 And 3149/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Shri G.D. Agrawal, President And Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Rahul Khare, Advocate Shri Yudhishter Seth, CA. For the Respondent : Shri Ravikant Gupta, Sr. DR. ORDER PER BENCH Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the assessee as they have always been ready to cooperate and complete the assessments but in view of the huge volume of work involved in this, we are complying with the information/requirement of the Ld. AO in a phased manner. However, ld. AO levied a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for each assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty but restricted the same to 3 out of 7 years. Hence, these appeals by the assessees. 4. It is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the authorised representative was present on all the dates of hearing before the Ld. AO submitting part of the information as and when it was ready and inasmuch as the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf months and nothing 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 Sang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was a proper and plausible 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. 7. Further, under similar circumstances, in the case of Globus Infocom Limited VS DCIT ITA 738/12/2014, a coordinate bench of this tribunal while following the decision in Akhil Bharatiya Prathamik Shaikshak Sangh Bhawan trust versus ACIT deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Facts being similar in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
