2022 (12) TMI 385

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 passing order confirming penalty U/s. 271(l)(b) of Rs. 10,000/-. The same needs cancellation. 2. The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and facts in passing order confirming 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. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order confirming penalty has been passed without considering statutory position. The penalty order passed is bad in law. The penalty needs cancellation. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the aspect that the order passed confirming penalty is bad in law, illegal an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Total Tax Effect Rs. 10,000/-" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment order under section 144 r.w.s. section 147 of the Act was finalised on 26-12-2017 determining the total income of the assessee at  26,84,240/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued as many as six notices to the assessee, which remained uncompiled with. Accordingly, the AO passed order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, levying penalty of  60,000/- for each of the defaults committed by the assessee in not causing appearing before the Ld. AO, during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the penalty to  10,000/- , by holding that since the default being the same on all occas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hearing was fixed for 07-07-2017, thus giving only four days time for the assessee to cause appearance. Again in respect of notice dated 17-11-2017, the hearing was fixed for 22-11-2017, which again gives a very limited time for the assessee to cause appearance. Again, in respect of notice dated 12-12-2017, the hearing was fixed for 15- 12-2017, which again displays lack of time and adequate opportunity being provided to the assessee to cause appearance. We also observe that the assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(Appeals) that during the period he had shifted to Diu and therefore there is no mention in the penalty order, whether the notices were served upon the assessee. Therefore, in the instant set of facts, we are of the considered view ....