2022 (4) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n law and facts in confirming order levying penalty U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/-. The same needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming order levying penalty U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- although no legal service of the notices for which penalty is levied is there. The penalty needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order levying penalty has been passed without confirming statutory position. The penalty order passed is bad in law. The penalty needs cancellation. Rs. 10,000/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order passed levying penalty is ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alized u/s 144 of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 10,69,98,670/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, several notices were issued requisitioning the assessee's appearance, but neither the assessee nor its AR attended nor any explanation/ compliance was made in response to the notices. The details of notices issued to assessee are tabulated below. Sr. No. Section of Notice Date of issue Remarks Status 1 142(1) 05/06/201 5 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 2 142(1) 10/06/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 3 142(1) 15/07/2015 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4 142(1) 18/01/2016 Served by RPAD Not Complied with 4. Since all the notices remained uncomp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le allowing relief to the appellant. 6. Before us none appeared for the assessee and AR of the assessee filed written submission dated "Nil'. We have perused the facts of the case, the orders passed by various authorities and the written submissions filed by the AR of the assessee. The Ld. AR for assessee in the written submission filed before us has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act even for the first default since in the assessment order no specific date of service on the assessee has been mentioned in respect of the first notice dated 05/06/2015 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act.Also, there was a very short time gap between issuance of first notice dated 05/06/2015 and the....