TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised in ITA No. 5909/Del/2016, for assessment year 2005-06 are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in fact and in law in upholding penalty u/s 271 (1 )(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 by disregarding decision of judicial Hon'ble ITAT that no penalty u/s 271 (1 )(b) is to be impose, when assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) instead of 144 of the Act, which implies that subsequent compliances made by the appellant were considered as good compliance. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding penalty u/s 271 (1 )(b) when non - compliance was not deliberate but due to reasonable cause, beyond the control of the appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding penalty u/s 271(1 )(b) without appreciating the fact that appellant has not received the show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271, hence penalty imposed without giving the appellant mandatory reasonable opportunity of being heard, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A), however, rejected the contention of the assessee that there was reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notices. Learned CIT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee that show-cause notice for levy of penalty of notice was not received by the assessee. Third ground of the assessee is that the assessment was not completed under Section 144 of the Act and, therefore, the delayed compliance should be treated as good compliance, was also rejected by the learned CIT(A). The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced as under : "6. The above submissions -have been carefully considered. The appellant has firstly, argued that it was prevented by reasonable cause from complying with the notice u/s 142(1). It is submitted that, vide its letters dated 04.04.2014 and 12.08.2014, the appellant requested for copy of the atisfaction recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s 153C. The same was provided as late as 11.12.2014. Thereafter, on 26.12.2014, the appellant filed its objections to the proceedings u/s 153C, which were disposed of by the AO on 02.01.2015. The appellant then filed its return of income on 28.01.2015. It is claimed that all the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng heard. The same is not borne out by the record. The appellant has claimed that it did not receive the show-cause notice of penalty u/s 271(l)(b), dated 16.01.2015. No reason has been given for the alleged non-receipt of the penalty notice, whereas the AO has mentioned the acknowledgment receipt of speed post by which the notice was dispatched, y Hence no relief is being allowed at ground of appeal no.2." 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for complying with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. He submitted that first notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.12.2014 and on said date, counsel of the assessee attended and matter was adjourned to 07.01.2015. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued one more notice under section 142(1) on 2nd January, 2015 which according to the Assessing Officer has not been complied with. The third notice was issued on 16th January, 2015, and in response to the same, the assessee filed copy of acknowledgement of the Income-tax return and thus partial compliance was made. He further submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3), therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act. I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed." 5.1 Further, in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd. (supra) also, the penalty laid u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act has been deleted, where assessment is completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The relevant finding of the order of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- "2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi ....