TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 through postal authorities. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(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 Central Academy, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and the assessee not received any notice during the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeding 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 current address of the assessee then in the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee had already furnished the current address in the quantum proceedings, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-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 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- by the AO is upheld and the grounds of appeal raised in present appeal are dismissed." 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (....