2015 (9) TMI 1653

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mon order. 2. The solitary ground which has been taken by the appellant-assessee, is that whether the AO has erred in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without correct appreciation of the facts and in law on subject. 3. The facts of the case are that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated against the appellant-assessee on 7.10.2009. The AO has issued number of notices and reminders but the assessee did not comply with the said notices and reminders, therefore, the penalty to the tune of Rs.,10,000/- in each case was imposed. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) but the ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee, hence, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../Mds/2012(AY-2009-10) dated 8.3.2013 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR refuted the said contentions and argued that the AO issued notice dated 29.8.2011 requiring many details from the assessee but he requested for adjournment and did not comply with the said notice and subsequently, issued a show cause notice requiring the attendance of the assessee on 13.9.2011 u/s 271(1)(b) but the assessee again requested an adjournment on account of being a month of tax audit and short time, therefore, the AO has rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each year u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the said order has rightly been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), hence, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. After giving careful consideration to th....