2016 (2) TMI 1086

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for all these assessment years from assessment year 2004-05 to 2010-11, the assessment u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 13.08.2012. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 07.10.2011, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 21.10.2011, 09.11.2011 & 21.11. 2011. The AO issued a notice u/s 142(2A) of the Act dated 28.12.2011, but the AO stated that in response to the notices, there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee had committed default within the meaning of provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for each non-compliance/default by issuing show-cause notices. The AO stated that in response to the show-cause notices for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive has firstly submitted that the assessee has reasonable cause and assessee had also requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance, but the AO has imposed the penalty and the assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, it shows that subsequent compliance was treated as non compliance and default committed has to be ignored by the Assessing Officer and the penalty cannot be levied. Similarly, he has also contended that the assessee had to prepare reply for all the 27000 pages and therefore, it took time and the assessee requested for time to the AO for complying notices. Lastly, he has submitted that as per the decision of Indore Tribunal in the case of Shankarlal Soni vs. ACIT, (2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsy is covered by the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rekha Rani vs. Dy. CIT, (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under :- "There was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for non appearing on the different dates of hearing before the AO in response to notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. However, I.T.A.T. find that the default is same and, therefore, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. The penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued u/s 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee. The provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. Any other view t....