2013 (4) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- U/s 271 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Such order is passed without considering the submission made before him as well as without considering facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, penalty levied U/s.271 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- should be cancelled. 2.Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 2. The facts in all these appeals are same and these appeals also have been decided by Ld. CIT(A) with a consolidated order, therefore, for the sake of convenience we proceed to decide all the appeals by this consolidated order. 3. Notice of hearing was sent to assessee through RPAD. However....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by her. On the said date an adjournment was sought and it was informed that fresh notice will be issued in this matter. Along with the said reply copy of adjournment letter was also filed. Thus it was submitted that there was no non-compliance of the statutory notice and proceedings under section 271(1)(b) should be dropped. However, A.O has rejected such explanation of the assessee on the ground that the reply filed by M/s. Malpani & Associates, Chartered Accountants is not satisfactory and is not acceptable. Stating the reason, AO has observed that M/s. Malpani & Associates has not filed letter of authority thus, that concern is not authorized to file reply and M/s. Malpani & Associates is also wrong in saying that fresh notices will ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In absence of any evidence or material to show that why the assessee did not make compliance of the notices, therefore, penalty was leviable. Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99(SC), wherein it has been held that mens-rea is not required to be proved in the case of penalty leviable under section 271(1)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has also referred to various decisions inter-alia including decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) to come to a conclusion that mens-rea is not an essential element to impose penalty. Ld. CIT(A) has also linked the failure of the assessee with the material foun....