TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by the ld. AR for the 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 due to some bonafide reason, no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act could be levied on the assessee. In view of aforesaid factual and legal position, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire remaining impugned penalty. In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422 & 423/Srt/2022 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T . Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the 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 23/01/2018 in case of a group of persons dealing in Crypto-currency. The assesse was also covered in the said search action. Consequent upon such search action, notice dated 24.09.2019 under Section 153C was issued to the assessee on to file return of income for A.Y. 2012- 13. In response to notice under Section 153 C, the assessee filed his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and finally order under Section 143(3). 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that in spite of taking objection on initiation of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed reply and submitted required details in response to notices of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not mentioned any sort of non-cooperation or adverse remark regarding non-attendance or non-submission of details in the final assessment order. The assessee has cooperative and replied and attended all the hearing in the erstwhile case. The ld. CIT(A) also held that filing of details ultimately cannot be the ground for non-levy of penalty when the default in non-submission of details in response to notice under Section 142(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), the assessee explained that there was reasonable cause for non-filing/response and seeking time for making compliance to the notices issued by assessing officer. Though, the ld. CIT(A), accepted that complete details were filed by assessee, yet the penalty order for alleged single default, was sustained to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. 8. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits in similar appeal against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) in assessee s group case, this Bench has already deleted similar penalties in Shree Granite Vs DCIT in ITA No. 362 to 368/Srt/2022 order dated 23/01/2023, though in such cases the penalty was sustained to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. There is no provision to levy or sustained the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022. 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that acceptance of return of income has no effect on non-compliance of notice during the assessment. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) is levied for non-compliance of notice issued by Assessing Officer or by ld. CIT(A). The alleged subsequent compliance was made by assessee when penalty was levied by Assessing Officer. Before levying penalty, the assessee was given full opportunity before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act as the case may be. From the order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Bench of Delhi Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT (supra) held that where assessee had not complied with notice under Section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. I further find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by the ld. AR for the assessee in his submission. Thus, considering the fact that assessment in the present case was completed under Section 153A/143(3) in accepting ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
