TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly filed her income tax return and disclosed all her income. In our considered view, the levy of penalty is not automatic. If the assessee makes out a case that the default was due to reasonable cause in that case, no penalty would be called for in terms of section 273B of the Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padmavat Sugar Mills Co.(P.) Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. [ 1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] observed that it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. The assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause for the default. We hold accordingly. The AO is hereby, directed to delete the impugned penalty. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Saurav Rohtagi, CA For the Respondent : Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi dated 11.07.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In ITA No. 1861/DEL/2017 relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Keshu Ramsay vs JCIT reported at 5 SOT 9 (Mum): wherein, it has been held that Where no proceedings relevant to that assessment year is pending when penalty notice was issued, is bad in law. In view of above the penalty notice issued after completion of assessment proceedings may be held as illegal 2. G.N. 2. TO 4 The appellant is a Salaried women. Details of Salary received by two Employers during the A.Y. 2012-13 and TDS deducted by those Employers of the assessee is as follows: S.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) 1. Income chargeable under the head salary (01.04.2011 to 04.07.2011) by BA Continuum India Pvt.Ltd. 4,22,847 2. Income chargeable under the head salary (25.07.2011 to 31.03.2012) by RBS Business Services Pvt.Ltd. 14,33,628 Total Salary received under the head salary 18,56,475 3. TDS Deducted by BA Conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn or notice u/s 148 assessee did not conceal any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. (for your kind reference Penalty under section 271F has been imposed in the case of assessee) Further, ITAT, Jaipur held that: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels (supra) has held that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Besides technical or venial breach of law can not be visited with stringent penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)........... A technical default for which provisions of sec. 271(1)(a) may be attracted cannot be made a basis for penalty us 271(1)(c). 6) All Case laws referred by Ld. AO in support of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) are irrelevant to the case of the Assessee: I pray to your good-self to kindly look the reason and subject matter of penalty in following case laws: (1) Para 5 f of Asstt. Order: M/s. A. M. Shah Co. vs. CIT 108 Taxman 137 (Asst. yr. 1971-72) The assessee is a firm which, at the relevant time, carried on business in purchase and sale of ball bearings, mill stores, etc., on retail basis. For the asst. yr. 1970-71, the assessee had disclosed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificates for the same to the Assessee. Assessee filed the return as soon as received the notice for filing the same, paid the balance tax liability as assessed by the department, paid further the Interest on delayed payment of Income Tax for entire delayed period. In view of the above it is the humble request to consider all facts, kindly accept my appeal and delete the demand. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the impugned order. He contended that the assessee failed to file return of income. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the non-filing of return of income by the assessee as concealment of particulars of income. He contended that case laws as relied by the assessee are distinguishable on the facts of present case. He therefore, submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee deserve to be dismissed. 8. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had failed to file her return of income despite having received salary income from two sources and income from other sources. On this basis, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
