TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaires were issued to the assessee and case was fixed for hearing on 23.08.2018. On 07.09.2018 show cause notice of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) was issued for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017 - 18 and case was fixed on 14.09.2018. In compliance to the said notice the assessee filed copy of ITR and bank statement only. Another notice u/s 142(1) dated 05.10.2018 was issued to the assessee for a p p e a r i n g on 25.10.2018 with details enclosed with notice. However, no compliance was made by assessee even to this notice for all these assessment years. The AO, therefore, issued show cause notice to the assessee asking him to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act shall not be levied for all these assessment years. In absence of any compliance made by the assessee, penalty u/s 271(l)(b) was levied by AO on 06.12.2019 for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017-18. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that 1. In the penalty order, the Ld AO has stated that in response to the penalty show cause notice dated 09.11.2018 fixing the hearing for 19.11.2018 - none attended the proceeding, whereas on 19.11.2018 the AR of the appellant appeared along with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Central Circle-19, New Delhi on 10.04.2017 and notices u/s 153A for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17 & 143(2) for A.Y. 2017-18 were issued by the Assessing Officer on 22.09.2017, in response to which the returns of income were filed by the appellant for these years on different dates before 31.03.2018. * Proceedings u/s 143(2) were initiated on 30.08.2018. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 30.08.2018 containing 23 queries to be replied by 10.09.2018 for all these assessment years. In response to it, only copy of ITR and bank statement were submitted on 10.09.2018 and no other details were filed. * Another notice u/s 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire containing 14 queries and explanation of seized material was issued on 05.10.2018 for filing the details on 25.10.2018 for all these assessment years. There was no compliance by the appellant on 25.10.2018. * A show cause notice dated 09.11.2018 for imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(b), for failure to furnish details u/s 142(1) dated 05.10.2018 was issued by the AO fixing the date of hearing on 19.11.2018. The appellant did not respond to the notice of the hearing on this date. * The AO had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18. The AO was left with no option but to levy penalty on 6.12.2018 even after waiting for one & half month for the reply/details from the appellant. It was after the order of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) passed by the AO on 06.12.2018, when the appellant first responded to the AO on 07.12.2018. There was no request for adjournment at any point of time in the whole proceedings citing plausible reasons for delay in submission of details. Although AO had not initiated any penalty for non compliance of earlier 142(1) notice dated 30.8.2018, there was no compliance of even this earlier notice by the appellant till December 2018. The case was time barring on 31.12.2018 and first compliance to 142(1) notices, dated 30.8.2018 & 5/16.10.2018, was made on 7.12.2018. Thus there was deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the compliance of the details asked by AO, to prevent the AO from investigation of issues, by squeezing the time at the disposal of the AO. Thus this plea of the appellant is also rejected considering the overall behaviour of the appellant regarding compliance before the AO. 6.3.2 The argument of the appellant that the notice u/s 142(1) was dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on face of it by the AO due to no time left for investigation or verification of these details from independent sources. In fact, the compliance of the appellant started after levy of penalty by AO and till the time of passing penalty order on 06.12.2018 there was no compliance by the appellant. Thus the act of appellant had severely hampered the assessment proceedings and caused prejudice to the AO. There was no "reasonable cause" on the part of appellant to explain such delay. Thus the case of appellant cannot be said to factually fall in the category of cited case laws by the appellant. Therefore, this plea of the appellant is also rejected. 6.4 In the facts & circumstances of the case and the discussion made in the para 6.3 above, it is held that the appellant had deliberately defaulted on various occasions without any "reasonable cause" to file the requisite details. The appellant had not bothered to even ask for adjournments, even if it is presumed that it was taking time to prepare the requisite details. The non compliance of notices had led to severe prejudice in the investigation process during assessment proceedings to the AO. These handicaps caused by the non co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce u/s 142(1) dated 16th October 2018. He submitted that even for the sake of arguments if the above notice was received within two three days of the notice dated 16th October 2018 even then also the huge details as asked for by the AO was not possible to be submitted up to 25th October, 2018 on account of non availability of reasonable time. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neetu Nayyer vs. ACIT and Smt. Meena Nayyar vs ACIT vide ITA Nos. 6189/Del/2019 to ITA No. 6194/Del/2016-17 and ITA No. 6195/Del/2019 to ITA No. 6200/Del/2019 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-2017 respectively vide order dated 22.12.2020, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty so levied by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 8. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has given elaborate reasons as to why the penalty levied by the AO in the instant case should be sustained. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 9. I have heard the rival argum....