TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income Tax (Appeals) - XXVI, New Delhi, in relation to the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") 2. Since facts & circumstances and the grounds raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, the same were heard together and disposed off by was of a consolidated order for convenience and brevity. As the grounds of appeal raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 4499/Del/2015 are only reproduced as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act. 2. That while upholding the levy of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No. 4315 to 4321/Del/2015, order dated 30.08.2017. 4. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of para 8.1 of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the assessee claimed to be a part of the 'MDLR' Group comprising of several entities in respect of which search operations was conducted by the Income Tax department on 31.01.2008. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer for attending the proceedings. In view of non-compliance of statutory notices by the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, amounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents conducted during short span of five months and therefore it was difficult to comply with all the notices on the appointed dates. Also it was submitted that main controlling person of the group, Sh. Gopal Goyal was detained in judicial custody since August, 2012 and he was entrusted with all the decisions and was aware of the tax matter and documents and therefore there was a delay in collecting information and consequently making compliances. In the said case, the Tribunal deleted the penalty mainly on the ground that facts and circumstances of the case constituted reasonable cause being under the scope and ambit of sections 273B of the Act. The Tribunal also held that that in view of the demand in quantum proceeding reduced to nil, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar Goyal who was in judicial custody. This contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. Assessing Officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings have not been accepted and he proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 read with section 153A. However on perusal of various replies filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, it is seen that most of the compliances have been made through replies/letters sent to the Assessing Officer either by filing in the dak or through registered/speed post. This is further corroborated by details of replies filed in various group cases as referred to by Ld. Counsel before us. Ostensibly there may be a case of delay in compliance or filing of replies before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling within the scope and ambit of section 273B and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that failure to comply with certain notices on a particular date was due to reasonable cause as highlighted by the assessee not only during the course of the assessment proceedings but also before the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(Appeals) in the impugned penalty proceedings and hence penalty cannot be levied in such circumstances. 10. Apart from that, one important fact brought on record is that, the demand in the quantum proceedings has been reduced to "nil", after giving effect to the first appellate order and there has been no substantive non- compliance either during the course of the assessment proceedings or during the appel....