TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty under Income Tax Act overturned due to appellant's compliance and valid reasons for delays.</h1> <h3>Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mumbai</h3> Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mumbai - TMI Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The appeals were filed against the common order passed by Ld CIT(A)-36, Mumbai concerning the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. The main issue raised was whether the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) was correctly imposed by the AO. The appellant argued that there was no failure on their part as they had complied with the notices issued by the AO. They contended that the penalty was unjustified, citing precedents like M/s Cabochon Arts Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT and others. On the other hand, the Department argued that the appellant had not complied with the notices and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).Upon careful consideration of the contentions and perusal of the record, it was observed that the appellant had responded to the notices and sought adjournments due to genuine reasons such as being pre-occupied with tax audits. The AO had imposed the penalty despite the appellant's compliance with the notices. The assessment order also indicated that the appellant's representative had attended hearings and provided necessary details. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justifiable as there was sufficient compliance with the notices and a reasonable cause for the delays. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents like M/s Cabochon Arts Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT to support its decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied by the AO was incorrect and against the law. The order of ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the decision was pronounced on 23rd Sept, 2015.
TaxTMI 