2017 (9) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder section 143(2)/142(1) fixing the case for hearing on 11th January, 2013 and none had attended that date. The assessee submitted in the written submissions that said notice had not been received by them till 11th January, 2013. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that A.O. followed-up the non-compliance to the above said notice, issued further notices but, none complied. The A.O. therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 10,000 for each of the three assessment years. 3. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that Smt. Abha Gupta, Aunt of the Assessee, was suffering from illness and had to be hospitalized on 11th January, 2013. Further, it was submitted that Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta and grand father-in-law of the assessee had to be hospitalized du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E' Bench in the group cases of M/s. Macadam Road Makers P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi in ITA. Nos. 6403 & 6404/Del./ 2014 for Assessment Year 2009-2010 whereby vide order on the even date the penalty in the similar circumstances have been cancelled and appeals of the assessee have been allowed. The order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under : "Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi, dated 1st September, 2014 for the A.Y. 2009-2010, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In ITA.No.6404/Del./2014 (A.Y.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts before the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that during assessment proceedings which are time barring in nature, the details required by the A.O. were not filed on time. In case details are filed at the last movement, the A.O. would be having no time to process the information received. The reasons given by the assessee did not explain the total non-compliance. The Ld. CIT(A) however, noted that there is a merit in levying the penalty in spite of certain procedural deficiencies pointed out by the assessee. However, levying penalty for three years, in the view of the Ld. CIT(A), would be harsh on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty for A.Y. 2009-2010 under appeal but penalty for A.Ys. 2010-2011 and 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng thereby, the explanation offered by the assessee has been accepted that no penalty is leviable. He has relied upon the common order of ITAT, SMC Bench, in the case of Smt. Usha Gupta etc., vs. ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi in ITA.Nos.6368 & 6371/Del./ 2014 etc., decided on 4th November, 2015 in which the A.O. levied the penalty for seven assessment years under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act and the Ld. CIT(A), deleted the penalty for four years. Considering the explanation of assessee to be proper, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty for the remaining years as well. He has submitted that the similar explanation for Mrs. Anju Gupta and Shri Satya Prakash Gupta have been considered for non-compliance in their cases on 9th October, 2....