TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3A. In this case penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was imposed on the ground that as per notice u/s 143(2) issued on 18-01-2013 and served on 21-01- 2013 the assessee was requested to attend and submit details on 28-01-2013. But the assessee did not comply with the above. On 15-02-2013 show cause letter was issued and the same was served on 18-02-2013 in response to which the assessee submitted the reply. Thereafter the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In these facts penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was levied. 4. Before the learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee, inter alia, made the following submissions:- "1. The assessee is a member of group known as "SHREE AGRAWAL COAL GROUP". The search u/s 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igilance Ministry of Finance, etc. But still AO made huge additions of Rs. 215 crores. This is a clear case of high pitched assessments. Thus the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause as explained above. Copies of letters written to higher authorities are enclosed herewith. Thus assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing books of accounts and details before the AO in this case. As a result, the AO did not verify the books of account, bills, vouchers and other documents. In appeal before CIT(A) the assessee, requested him to allow assessee to submit details which assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing with AO. CIT(A) accepted the request of assessee and allowed it to file fresh evidence unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... asked to submit the details in the remand proceedings. In view of the facts discussed above, it is held that in any case, the assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) since the assessee did not give any details during assessment proceedings and the AO had to pass the orders without the details on record. It is held that the assessee has not complied with the notices of the AO issued by him u/s 143(2). In the circumstances, the penalty levied by him of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the assessment years from AY 2005-06 to 2011-12 is upheld." 6. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. At the outset learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....big group. Four days time to submit details in such a case is not at all reasonable from any stretch of imagination. Further more the assessee did reply to the subsequent show cause notice and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. This has also to be looked into on the anvil of assessee's submission that the AO has refused the assessee recording of attendance on the specified date and for which the assessee has petitioned to higher authorities. 10. In these circumstances, in my opinion, there was a reasonable cause for non attendance of the assessee. Hence on the anvil of section 273B penalty is not leviable. Again the issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Akhil Bhariya Prathmik Shi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AD. Therefore, in such circumstances, there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful. 2.6 In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the learned CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty. Thus, the appeal is allowed." 11. I find that the above case law fully applies on the facts of the case. Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in distinguishing this case law as he has opined that the assessment order in the present case though passed u/s 143....