9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the condition of assigning plausible reasons to be given for rejection of the replies of the assessee. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by Ld. AO u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, whereas the assessee had submitted it reply on all the points raised in questionnaire. The order of penalty is bad in law being against the principles of natural justice." 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is an individual. In this case assessment order was completed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") at the total income of Rs. 7,55,100/-. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for non-compliance of the stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t KCC loan on 15.11.2016 on account of fist deposit and not allowed deposit of Rs. 100000 on 15.11.2016 on the same day in the another KCC loan account and Rs. 450000 on 24.11.2016 on 24.11.2016 sin the third KCC Loan account. The reply submitted by the assessee was complete with Cass flow statement but the AO had made the addition of Rs. 564000 on the plea that the amounts were deposited on second go. Finally addition was deleted by the hon'ble SMC Bench of the ITAT vide order dated 23.02.2023. the AO Faceless Assessment Centre had made its own default of two notices without intimation of penalty and imposed penalty of Rs. 20000/- upon the assessee without satisfying the condition of assigning plausible reasons to be given for rejection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned DR submitted that the penalty has been levied for non-compliance of the statutory notices, therefore, deletion of addition would not absolve the assessee from penal liabilities on account of non-compliance of the statutory notices. It is seen from the record that in response to the penalty notice the assessee had filed certain explanation before the Assessing Authority. However, the Assessing Authority did not consider the same. In my considered view the penalty u/s 271A(1)(d) is not automatic. If the assessee could show the reasonable cause for non-compliance, in that event the AO should not levy the penalty. It is the contention of the assessee that AO through National Faceless Assessment Centre had issued notice dated 14.03.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
