9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/-. The same needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order levying penalty U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- although no legal service of the notices for which penalty is levied is there. The penalty needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order levying penalty has been passed without confirming statutory position. The penalty order passed is bad in law. The penalty needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order passed levying penalty is bad in law, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment proceedings, several notices were issued requisitioning the assessee's appearance, but neither the assessee nor its AR attended nor any explanation/ compliance was made in response to the notices. The details of notices issued to assessee are tabulated below. Sr. No. Section of Notice Date of issue Remarks Status 1 142(1) 05/06/201 5 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 2 142(1) 10/06/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 3 142(1) 15/07/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4 142(1) 18/01/2016 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4. Since all the notices remained uncompiled with, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted "Nil'. We have perused the facts of the case, the orders passed by various authorities and the written submissions filed by the AR of the assessee. The Ld. AR for assessee in the written submission filed before us has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act even for the first default since in the assessment order no specific date of service on the assessee has been mentioned in respect of the first notice dated 05/06/2015 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act.Also, there was a very short time gap between issuance of first notice dated 05/06/2015 and the second notice which was issued on 10/06/2015. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty in respect of even the first noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above in the table. It, therefore, shows that at least on two occasions, assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for the Act for non-compliance to the notices dated 02.05.2013 and 10.09.2013. We, therefore, in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani (supra) and in view of the facts discussed above, hold that assessee is liable to pay Rs. 20,000/- as penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act as against Rs. 60,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 8. We are therefore view that Ld. CIT(A) has taken a very reasonable view in the matter by restricting the penalty to only one default of non- compliance, though the Ld. AO has issued four notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, all of which remained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
