TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned assessing officer levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- U/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Such order is passed without considering the submission made before him as well as without considering facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, penalty levied U/s 271 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- should be cancelled. 2. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal." 2. The facts in all these appeals are same and these appeals also have been decided by ld. CIT(A) with a consolidated order, therefore, for the sake of convenience we proceed to decide all the appeals by this consolidated order. 3. Notice of hearing was sent to assessee thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply. Hence the AO rightly did not consider such unauthorized and irregular reply. It was the obligation of the assessee to show reasonable cause and AO was not required to establish contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and deliberate defiance of law. In absence of any evidence or material to show that why the assessee did not make compliance of the notices, the penalty was leviable. Ld. CIT(A) has further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99(SC), wherein it has been held that mens-rea is not required to be proved in the case of penalty leviable under section 271(1)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has also referred to various decisions inter-alia including decision of Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the assessee to answer the charge of having failed to comply with notice under section 142. It has been held that where the AO had rejected assessee's plea relating to the reasons put forth by him preventing him to produce the books before the AO on the stipulated date, the levy of penalty by the AO under section 271(b) of the Act was justified. 7. We have considered the submissions of the ld. D.R. We have also carefully gone through the penalty order as well as order passed by ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the penalty order passed by the AO reveals that the CIT(A) has not correctly narrated the facts of the case. As per the penalty order, in response to notice issued under section 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act), the reply of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) in his order. 9. Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee before the AO had submitted that the alleged notice was in fact in the name of Mafatlat individual not Mafatlal HUF (assessee) and on the date fixed reply was filed in that case. It was further submitted that the assessee was still ready to provide the required details. In our view, it is not a case where the assessee without any reasonable cause had failed to comply with the notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue has not placed any copy of the alleged notice which was issued and served in the name of the assessee. The assessee had given the reply that though no notice under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax A....