2015 (9) TMI 1285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT [2008] 115 TTJ (Del.) 419 in the grounds raised praying for quashing the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in each of the years upheld by the CIT(A) on the plea that on facts there was bonafide belief that there was no willful default on the part of the assessee. 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the material available on record, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeals ex-parte qua the assesseeappellant on merits after hearing the Ld. CIT DR who placed reliance on the submissions in writing on record placed by Dr. Sudha Kumari, CIT DR. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that a search & seizure operatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een regularly filing its returns of income. In the facts of the case it was pleaded that the seized materials were common for all the assessees in the group and at the time of issuance of notice u/s 142(1) the entire group cases were not fully centralized at Central Circle, New Delhi. It was submitted that most of the group cases were assessed to tax earlier at Nagpur. As a result of this, the counsel of the assessee who was to come had to come from Nagpur. Apart from this, it has also been stated that the notice u/s 142(1) for the specific date was not served at F- 315, Lado Sarai, New Delhi; neither at the registered office address nor at the administrative office of the assessee nor for that matter at any of the addresses mentioned in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11. That the law is well settled that an order imposing penalty is a result of quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. No penalty should be imposed if the assessee was acting in honest and genuine belief in a particular manner. As held be 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 should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially a....