2015 (2) TMI 1310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per Bench,   Challenging the orders of the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai,Assessees have raised identical Grounds of Appeal for the above mentioned Assessment Year(AY.) in all the group cases: "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the penalty u/ s. 271(1)(b) Rs. 10,000/-. 2.The assessee company craves leave to add, alter o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Authority(FAA). Before him a copy of the appellate order in respect of similar penalty levied by the AO on 03.10.2012 was filed. It was submitted before him that his predecessor had deleted the penalty under the similar circumstances relying upon the order of the Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust(115TTJ419) of the Delhi Bench. After considering the penalty order and the submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rust(supra).Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA and stated that the assessee did not appear on three occasions. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO had levied penalty u/s.271(1)(b)of the Act for non appearance before him that the assessee had, vide its letter dated 18.06.2012,specifically mentioned that its rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not complied with notice under section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1 )(b) was not justified. Respecfully following the above orde....