2016 (10) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 271(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that both the assessees have not complied with the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 26.08.2014 and 12.11.2014 and for the said reason, penalties had been levied vide orders dated 07.11.2014 & 17.12.2014 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and in the case of Kymore Iron Ores Pvt Ltd. also on the same grounds penalties had been levied vide orders dated 07.11.2014 & 17.12.2014 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. 3. As per the penalty orders, search in the case of these assessees took place on 20.6.2012. After that notices were issued u/s 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2007- 08 to 2012-13 on 3.6.2013. The notices were also issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 26.8.2014 and date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies levied vide order dated 17.12.2014 for the Assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The assessees are now in appeal before us against the orders of the learned CIT(A). 5. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the submissions which were made before the learned CIT(A). The same are being reproduced hereunder :- "1. The above appeals have been filed against the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act on 07.11.2014 & 17.12.2014. 2. The A.O. has levied the penalties to the assessee on the ground that he has not complied with the notices issued u/s.142(1) on 26.08.2014 and on 12.11.2014. The penalty has been levied Rs. 10000 for each default in all assessment years. 3. The sequence of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... never been address of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee could not get the notices in time as explained above and due to this reason, the submission in compliance to the notices was filed belatedly on 28.11.2014 and, therefore, the A.O. is not justified in levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. 5. It may be submitted that as the assessee made the compliance of notices issued to him u/s.142(1) from time to time, though belatedly and, therefore, the learned A.O. made the assessment of the assessee u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A. In the following case, it has been held that assessment having made u/s.143(3) means that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the default committe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 142(1) though with some delay but this is not the case of noncompliance of notices. The ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Shankerlal Soni Vs. ACIT - 13 ITJ 96 (Ind-Trib) held that the assessee appeared in the assessment proceedings time to time, the assessment orders were passed u/s. 143(3) - these facts show that subsequent compliance was treated as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and, hence penalty cannot, therefore, be levied. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.; 246 ITR 568 has held - "A bare reading of the provisions of section 271 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear that, it is the assessing authority who....