TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the issue are common, hence, these appeals are being consolidated and disposed off together by this common order. 2. At the outset we note that Revenue has sought adjournment in these cases on the ground that regular Sr. Departmental Representative is suffering from alergic bronchitis. However, we note that similar adjournment was sought by the Department on 3.2.2012. On the said date the Ld. DR had agreed that the mater can be taken up on 6.2.2014. Upon careful consideration, we find that matter can be disposed off by hearing the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and perusing the records. In such circumstances, we have dismissed the adjournment petition filed by the Revenue. 3. The common issue raised is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly. Search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on Shiv Vani Group on 06.1.2011. 2. That the company was incorporated on 24th March, 2006 which was submitted before AO alongwith certificate of incorporation. 3. That the seized materials were common for all the assessee. 4. That the group cases were not fully centralized at Central Circle, New Delhi at the time of issue of notice u/s. 142(1). 5. That the counsel of the assessee was from Nagpur since most of the group cases were assessee to tax earlier at Nagpur. 6. The penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is for non compliance to the notice but the assessee had replied to the notice for show cause issued by the AO. 7. That the department requested the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articular manner. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or when the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 6. Considering the above, Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars in these cases assessment orders were passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act and not under section 144 of the I.T. Act. In such circumstances, we agree with the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee made the compliance in the assessment proceedings and as such there could be no reason to come to the conclusion that default was deliberate or willful. 10. In this regard Ld. Counsel further referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, (2008) (2008) 115 TTJ (Del.) 419. In this case it was held that assessment have been made under section 143(3) and not under section 144 of the IT Act. It means that subsequent compli....