2015 (5) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve reasonable cause. (2) That on facts and in law Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s.142(1) dated 3-2-2010 and 24-5-2010.The said notices were not complied with. Therefore, the A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Against the said assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal. 4. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The only ground is against the confirmat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y other assessment years. No notice under sec. 1412(1) was issued to these assessees in respect of other assessment years. So far as letters requiring compliance issued by the Assessing Officer on 14-8-2007 / 17-8-2007 are concerned, it is noticed that except in the case of Shri Kaushal M. Khanna, the letters did not mention that compliance is required to be made u/s.142(1). Before levying penalty under sec. 271(1)(b), there must be specific notice to the assessee for specific assessment year with specific requirements to be complied with . The compliance must have relevance to the assessment year in question and it must have apparent nexus with the assessment for that assessment year to be framed. General information sought may not be rele....