TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing grounds:- "1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them." 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information in possession of the department and after recording reasons to belief the assessment has been reopened u/s 147, and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 17.03.2015 which was served upon the assessee thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments in written submission dated 19.10.2021 which are as under: "1. The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration she has not taxable income. 2. That notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 17.03.2015. 3. That the assessment was completed u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (ex-party vide dated 03.03.2016. 4. Further, the penal proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also initiated by Ld. AO for non compliances of the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. 5. But, the said notice was served to wrong address by the Ld. AO i.e. DAV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, assessee is also submitting that she will get to know about the assessment order and demand raised by the Income Tax Department, when the proceeding of recovery of demand was initiated by the income tax department. A copy of affidavit dated 13.10.2021 is enclosed for your ready reference. ABACUS case law citation: ABACUS 2400 (2018) of ITAT The assessee was not served with any of the notices issued by the AO due to the change of address and since the assessee had not filed any return of income, therefore, the AO was not having the present address of the assessee. Hence when the notice issued under section 142(1) was not served upon the assessee, and the AO had not conducted further enquiry regarding the cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued and duly served upon you on two different addresses on different dates i.e. at Jaipur address on 02.08.2015 and at Bahrod address on 02.08.2015. The assessee was non filer of return for A.Y. 2008-09 and the assessment was passed u/s 144 on the basis of material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, the AO took its best efforts to trace the assessee and to serve notices to her. Upon perusal of the submissions as well as judicial decisions the assessee relied upon, I did not find force in the plea of the assessee considering the facts in mind that the assessee did not get its address updated in PAN or file the return for the relevant previous year with her latest address of residence. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other notices or directions would not attract the penalty Under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.. 9.2 Further we are of the opinion that assessee was not aware about the assessment proceedings, so the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 144 on ex parte basis. All the notices were sent by the Income Tax Department at DAV Central School, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, where earlier assessee was in Job. But when the proceedings was undergone at that time assessee settled in Behror (Alwar) and the address of assessee is W/o Gaurishankar, Hamidpur Road, Behror, Alwar, Rajathan-301701 as per the Adhaar card also. 9.3 Further, we have perused the documentary evidence of assessee's Aadhar Card for the change of address and Affidavit of the ass....