2015 (12) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../-. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee/appellant read as under:- "1. The order passed by CIT (A) -XXXIII is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. The CIT (A) -XXXIII has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant by the respondent under section 272 A (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT (A)-XXXIII has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant by the respondent under section 272 A (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the appellant for reasons attributable to the Appellant as the Appellant was disabled by the I.T. team to access the hard disc containing the accounting data by not following the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... any case, the fact of the matter is that the assessee Company was to produce the books of accounts before the Investigation Wing of the Department for verification in its case, which it failed to do so purposely and consciously, and despite being in possession of the books of accounts. I, therefore, hold that M/ s HFCL has intentionally and willfully failed to respond to the summon u/ s 131 of the I T Act 1961 and it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/ s 272 A (1) (c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.l0,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand rupees only) is levied as below:- Penalty (As discussed above) = Rs. 10,000/-" From first appellate order of the CIT(A), we note that the penalty was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Unit V(2), Delhi. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty by observing that the submission and explanation of the assessee is not verifiable that the account books were in the server seized by the Department is not verifiable as the account books were never accessed in Investigation Wing even with the help of employees of the appellant company. 6. The main contention of the appellant is that the assessee did cooperate with the Revenue during assessment proceedings and the assessee produced books of accounts before DCIT which is apparent from the observation in para 3.13 and 3.14 of the assessment order. It was also contended by the assessee that on the one hand, the Department is imposing penalty for non-production of account books and on the othe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not consider this compliance on his own whims by observing that the same were not produced at the time of search during post search inquiries and during assessment proceedings and these observations are contrary to the facts noted by him in para 3.13 that the assessee submitted account books, hence, basis of the allegation that the assessee did not comply with the notices of the DCIT is not found to be sustainable. However, we observe that there was a delay in complying with the directions/notices of the DCIT/Assessing Officer but this appears to be due to reasons beyond control of the assessee. In the case of M/s Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs The State of Orissa AIR 1970 Hon'ble Supreme Court 253, ....