TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty u/s 271(1)(b) was not justified. Similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by assessee in his submission. Thus, considering the fact that assessment in the present case was completed u/s 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, find that it was sufficient compliance, merely because the assessee could not make compliance for single hearing due to some bonafide reason on the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - AO in the assessment order recorded that the assessee made compliance of notice at the same time he has levied penalty for default of the same notice. Even otherwise, if it is considered that the assessing officer might have committed mistake while recording various dates of notice, subsequent compliance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstanc es of the cas e as well as law on the subjec t, the learned Commissioner of the Income T ax (Appeals) has erred in conf irming the action of the assessing Off icer in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - U/s 271(1)(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. It is theref ore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of th e tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either bef ore or in the course of th e hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 16/08/2018 in case of Pearl Group Surat. The assesse was also covered in the search action. Consequent upon such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity for filing his submission. The assessee was allowed three opportunities which shows that the assessee is a habitual defaulter for non-compliance of statutory notices. Further aggrieved, the assessee has fled the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the Revenue and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has made full compliance during the assessment for all the assessment years. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act in accepting the returned income in all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has no intention to avoid compliance of such notice when the assessee and his representative were appearing in other 99 related/connected appeals. 7. The ld. AR submits that the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in a series of decisions held that when the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no cause for levying of such penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. To support his submission, the ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: Akash Manganlal Patel Vs DCIT ITA No. 141 to 147/Srt/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order for levying penalty under section 271(1)(b), the ld Sr DR submits that such action is independent of the assessment order. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. I have also deliberated upon the various case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 30/09/2021. The Assessing Officer accepted returned income without any variation or addition. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 17/02/2021 i.e. prior to passing the assessment order. I find that in para-3.1 the assessing officer recorded that notice dated 03.02.2021 was served thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee made compliance of notice dated 03.02.2021, at the same time he has levied penalty for default of the same notice. Even otherwise, if it is considered that the assessing officer might have committed mistake while recording various dates of notice, subsequent compliance is sufficient and no penalty is sustainable in the present case. 11. In view of aforesaid factual and legal position, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 12. In ITA No. 363 to 365/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17, the facts are identical. The Assessing Officer levied penalty with similar reasons. Considering our decision in ITA No. 363/Srt/2022 for the A.Y. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
