TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re evenly dated 30.01.2018. 2. As the issue and facts raised in all these appeals are similar, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of the assessee namely Mrs. Manu Rai, ITA No.235 to 241/Ind/2018 wherein the assessee has commonly challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act levied by the Ld. A.O in all the seven years. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual. The source of income is business and tuition fees. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 were conducted at the various premises of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 have been completed u/s 153A rws 143(3) and for AY 2016-17 u/s 143(3). Assessee filed replies before Ld. AO for the purpose of completing assessment fact of which is discernible from the assessment order itself. Also, it is not a case of assessment done ex-parte by applying provisions of section 144. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) is not eligible. 2.The subsequent compliances in the assessment proceedings are to be considered as good compliances and default committed earlier should be ignored. Penalty imposed u/s 271(l)(b) for each of the seven years ought to be deleted. B. Assessed income is same as returned income for AY 2010-11 to 2015-16 1.Assessee submits that the returned income for AY 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required to explain the nature of possession and source/mode of acquisition of such jewellery and reconcile the same with her declared income/assets. Further, Again, vide show-cause notice dated 07/12/2017 the assessee has been again required to explain the nature of possession and source of this jewellery and silver articles found from his premises and to reconcile the same with her declared income/assets with documentary evidences. The assessee has also been required to state as to why the addition shall not be added to her total income, in absence of necessary evidences. In this regard assessee relied detailed submission the is as under... [PB 5 para 10.2] From the above it is evidently clear that the assessee has com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Representative vehemently argued supporting order of both the lower authorities but could not controvert the fact that the issue is squarely covered by various decision of jurisdictional Indore Bench of I.T.A.T. 7. We have heard rival contentions and carefully gone through the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal relied and referred by the assessee. The sole issue raised in the case of Mrs. Manu Rai relates to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs. 10,000/- for non appearance before the Ld. A.O on the scheduled date of hearing. Perusal of the records shows that in the instant case assessee after failing to appear on the initial date of hearing subsequently complied with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Assessment Year 2010-11 framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We are therefore of the considered opinion that in all the three cases as the assessment orders have been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, It proves that the assessee had cooperated in the assessment proceedings and therefore respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal referred above, we delete the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in the three appeals bearing No.350 to 352/Ind/2018. 8. In the result all the three appeals are allowed. 8. Similar view was also taken by the Indore Bench of ITAT in the case of Rambhau Ghyanshyam Asai (HUF) ITA No.798/Ind/2016 to 804/Ind/2016 order dated 16.05.2018 (supra) wherein the Tribunal deleted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Mrs. Manu Rai (ITA No.235 to 241/Ind/2018). The sole ground raised in all the seven appeals stands allowed. 11. Now we take up the remaining appeals of the assessee(s) namely Manish Rai (ITA No.242 to 248/Ind/2018) and Mrs. Meena Devi Rai (ITA No.249 to 255/Ind/2018). Similar issues and facts have been dealt by us in the case of Mrs. Manu Rai in the preceding paragraphs. Before us both the parties i.e. Ld. Counsel for the assessee and Departmental Representative fairly accepted that the issues raised and facts in these appeals of the assessee(s) namely Manish Rai and Mrs. Meena Devi Rai are similar to that of Mrs. Manu Rai which we have adjudicated in the preceding paragraphs. We therefore apply the finding in the case of Mrs. Man....