TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2014 by ITO, Ward (2)(1), Baroda. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals)-5 is against law and facts. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals)-5 erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, without considering the facts of the case that the appellant has not acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. 3. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts, as culled out from the record, are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from pension and income from interest. The case was picked up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. From the chronology of the events, it is clear that the assessee was deliberately and intentionally avoiding compliance with the requirements of the six notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has failed to establish any reasonable cause for its failure to comply with the requirements of the six notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Rather, it appears from the chronology of the events that the assessee was deliberately avoiding compliance with the said notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee appears to have partially complied with the requirements of the notices u/s. 142(1), which clearly indicates that the assessee was indulging in delaying tactics and that it had failed to fully comply with the requirements of the said noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of his contention, ld. Counsel relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani vs. DCIT, reported in [2015] 60 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi - Trib.). 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not complied to the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on all the occasions even when the notices were served either by hand or by speed post. He also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed a reply on 07.08.2013 after not complying the last hearing on 09.05.2013. After 07.08.2013, assessee was again required to appear before the Assessing Authority, but again he chose not to comply with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on five occasions, but with regard to the notice dated 24.07.2013 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, assessee has replied on 07.08.2013 stating that no business was carried on by him and he has neither purchased nor sold any immovable property during the Assessment Year 2011- 12. After receiving the reply on 07.08.2013, ld. Assessing Officer again issued notice on 10.09.2013 mentioning specifically that as per AIR report, assessee has sold immovable property on 03.05.2010 but in the income-tax return no income from capital gains has been shown. Assessee again remained silent to this notice of 10.09.2013. These facts have not been rebutted by ld. Counsel and he has only urged that penalty should not be levied for all the defaults. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed." 13. On perusal of the above decision, we observe that if there is a failure on the part of ....