2014 (1) TMI 1713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent : M s. Meenakshi 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 oppor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... opportunity and in this view also he submitted 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 subsequ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and perused the material placed before us. The penalty had 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance. 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 imposin....