2017 (6) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t year 2010-11. 1. In the present case, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, in respect of non compliance of notice dated 01/06/2012 issued under said section142(1) by the Assessing Officer ( "the AO" in short). It stated in the impugned penalty order that compliance to the said notice was not made even though opportunity to do so was given on subsequent date 09/07/2012, 12/07/2012 and 23/07/2012 although the AR attended on 09/07/2012 and he had also filed a written reply on 24/07/2017 but still requisite documents/ information were not provided. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty vide order dated 08/08/2014, with the observation that the uncomplied notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, in this case is dated 0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orities, or from the submissions of the ld. DR. It is also not disputed that the order of ld CIT (A) is dated 08/08/2014 and the assessment order is dated 30/01/2013. It is categorically discussed in 1st Para, on the very 1st page of the Assessment Order, that Sh. M L Agrawal, AR for the assessee attended from time to time and filed written submission and details in compliance to said notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. It is seen that the AR attended on 09/07/2012 in compliance to the said notice, on the subsequent date of hearing. However, nothing specifically mentioned in respect of the documentary evidences called for on 12/07/2012 and 23/07/2012 although most of the relevant documentary evidences were available with the AO in the form of imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....horities to show that the instant case is an attempt of deliberate defiance on the part of the assessee. In fact, the assessment having been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act with the discussion on 1st Para at 1st page of the Assessment Order that Sh. M L Agrawal, AR for the assessee appeared from time to time and filed written submission and details in compliance to said notice 142(1), means that not only the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance, but the very charge of non-compliance to the statutory notices was itself conceded. It is seen that ld CIT (A) has rejected the submission of the assessee on mere presumptions and surmises, without support of any specific documentary evidence and lega....