TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the material available on record and the submissions of the Sr. DR, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeal exparte qua the assessee appellant on merit. 3. The relevant facts of the case as appreciated by the CIT(A) are extracted as under:- "2.1. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of assessee and during the assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) issued by AO and in the result the AO passed penalty order u.s 271(1)(b) for all the 7 A.Ys. 3. The following facts emerge from the AO's order: 3.1. Consequent upon search and seizure on Shiv Vani group dated 6/01/2011 this case was centralized alongwith other group cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."5.1. I have considered the submissions of the AR and the penalty order. No reasonable cause has been shown except that they were from Nagpur and that not all the cases of the group have been centralized. These cannot be grounds for total non-compliance to statutory notices. The non compliance to the notices is not disputed. I am of the view that, the appellant should have attended before the AO and taken adjournments. In the given circumstances penalty is leviable." 4. Aggrieved by this the assessee is before the ITAT, relying upon the Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ACIT (2008) 115 TTJ (Delhi) 419 and Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) addressed vide Ground No-4 & 5 in the present procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on Shiv Vani Group on 06-01-2011. 2. That the seized materials were common for all the assessee. 3. That the group cases were not fully centralized at Central Circle, New Delhi at time of issue of notice u/s 142(1). 4. That the counsel of the assessee was from Nagpur since most of the group cases were assessee to tax earlier at Nagpur. 5. The notice u/s 142(1) was served at F 315, Lado sarai, New Delhi and not at the registered or administrative office of the assessee nor on the address mentioned in records with the department. 6. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is for non compliance to the notice but the assessee had replied to the notice for show-cause issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o penalty should be imposed if the assessee was acting in honest and genuine belief in a particular manner. As held be the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC), penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or when the breach flows from a bonafied belief that the offen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty holding as under:- "We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The penalty had been levied by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of the notice dated 8.11.2010. From the assessment order, it is evident that the notice under section 142(1)/143(2) dated 8.11.2010 alongwith the detailed questionnaire was issued fixing the case for 18.11.2010. These details have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 2 page 1 of the assessment order. Thus, total ten days' time was allowed from the date of issue of the notice. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the date on which such notice was served upon the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the time of less than te....