TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kshi Vohra, DR ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A) for asstt. years 2005-06 to 2011-12 vide order dated 27.5.2013. 2. The common issue raised is that Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act in spite of the fact that no reasonable opportunity was granted to the assessee for b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that penalty cannot be levied. 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) 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 compliance in the assessment proceedings was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been levied by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of the notice dated 8.11.2010. From the assessment order, it is evident that the notice under section 142(1)/143(2) dated 8.11.2010 alongwith the detailed questionnaire was issued fixing the case for 18.11.2010. These details have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 2 page 1 of the assessment order. Thus, total ten days' ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee as above also come to the rescue of the assessee. 8.1 Furthermore, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 held that that "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is t....