TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bhopal, all dated 27.4.2016 arising out of different orders u/ 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act (in short referred as 'Act') Act framed by the ITO 2(1), Bhopal. 2. Since common issue is involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. Earlier these appeals were dismissed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for short appeal fee and nonprosecution with the observation that the "assessees are at liberty to pay the short fee after receipt of this order within two months and thereafter to make proper application for restoration of appeals, if so desired, as per law". We observe that the assessee had deposited the dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d like to briefly state the facts of ITA No. 798/Ind/1016 in case of Rambhau Ghanshyam Asai (HUF). In this case, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued but in compliance, none attended nor any written submissions were filed. The Assessing Officer in order to provide one more opportunity, issued another notice/query letter on 18.3.2014 fixing the date of hearing on 21.3.2014. Notices u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued on 20.3.2014 which were duly served on the assessee on 20.3.2014. Vide letter dated 21.3.2014 the assessee submitted that return filed on 20.3.2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 may be considered as return in response to notice u/s 143(2) for assessment year 2010-11. Thereafter a notice u/s 274 read with section 271of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessees gave necessary details before the Assessing Officer for the purpose of completing the assessment and as such the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not exigible. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to and relied upon the judgments in the cases of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh; 115 TTJ 419 (Del); Hemant Soni and others; ITA Nos. 361 to 1367/Ind/2016, etc.; (Trib. Indore) and Vineet Chauhan and others ITA Nos. 1061 to 1181/Ind/2016. 9. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was deleted by various Tribunals. In the case of Akhil Bhartiya Parthmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del.), it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice u/s. 142(1) but assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) and not u/s. 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO, therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. The case laws cited by ld. Departmental Representative are distinguishable on facts, hence, inapplicable to this case. We also noted that in the Vinit Chouhan group cases, an order is passed in a group in I.T.A. Nos 106....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, we find that in the present appeals the assessments have been framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in all the cases of the assessees in the present appeals. Therefore, the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Incometax; (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del) squarely applies to the facts of the present appeals. The learned DR could not cite any contrary decision. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Incometax; (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del) wherein it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice unde....