2015 (3) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this appeal: "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty for four alleged defaults on the part of the appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider that, even as per the Department's own record, in respect of three of the alleged defaults, there is no service of notice on the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider that even in respect of the alleged default in one case, the appellant did have "reasonable cause". 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leged the default on the part of the assessee on four occasions when the notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee from 23.06.06 to 15.09.06. The ld. A.R. submitted that out of these four notices there was no service of three notices to the assessee or to any of the person at the place of the assessee. The 4th notice appears may have been served on some security guard as it does not bear the signature or stamp of the assessee company. Therefore, in these circumstances, when there was no effective notice on the assessee, the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer and consequently there is no default on the part of the assessee. Alternatively, the ld. A.R. submitted that for all other assessment years....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es for want of delivery, the other notice was delivered under the acknowledgement which does not bear the seal or name of the recipient. Further, the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings that the notice allegedly served at the address 319, Marathon Max, Mulund (West), Mumbai was not received by the assessee because the assessee hired the said premises for a short period and subsequently cancelled the lease agreement. The notices sent at the Bandra address of the assessee were not at all served to anybody and therefore there was no service on the assessee. We further note that in the quantum proceedings the Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the assessee as reasonable cause for not appearing before....