TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. We take ITA No. 119/Jodh/2022 for the A.Y. 2010-11 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee:- "1. That the levy of penalty by the ITO and sustained by the CIT(A) is illegal and against the law. 2. That the penalty was not properly initiated therefore in absence of proper initiation of penalty is illegal and against the law. 3. That the penalty notice is not proper notice therefore the levy of penalty and sustained by CIT(A) is illegal. 4. That the levy of penalty and sustained by CIT(A) is excessive and high 5. That the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. 6. That act of AO is based the penalty of 271(1)(c) kept in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jodhpur vide order us 263 dated 05.03.2021, set-aside, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2017. 2. Thereafter, the assessment in this case was completed U/s 147/144 r.w.s. 263 on 01.12.2021 at assessed income of Rs.5,08,518/- by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. During the assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 02.08.2021, requiring him to prepare and furnish information/details with supporting documents. The notice was duly served upon the assessee. As per this notice, the assessee had to compliance to the notice by 09.08.2021. However, the assessee neither filed his return nor submitted any reply in this regard. In view of this, penalty pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filed his response. This clearly establishes that the assessee has nothing to submit in the matter. 5. In view of the above discussion, a penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- is hereby imposed as per the provision of section u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 after providing due and reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee." 5. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- "5.1 I have carefully gone through the records and facts of the case. The appellant has raised five grounds of appeal which challenge the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. Since these grounds of appeal are interlinked, these are being adjudicated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted its reply in Form 35 that the AO was requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance as he had filed an appeal against the assessment order. 5.6 The AO in his penalty order dated 10.06.2022 levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act as the appellant did not respond to various statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act nor he replied to the show cause as to why an order imposing penalty should not be made on him u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. The appellant did not respond to this notice. Subsequently, two more notices were issued by the AO on 26.04.2022 and 19.05.2022 and which were duly served upon the appellant. 5.7 The appellant's brother replied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, these grounds of appeal are treated as dismissed." 6. The ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 7.1 We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The ld. AR for the assessee has replied for the notice issued by the Department that the assessee is going to prefer an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the order whose copy was provided to the assessee now and requested the Assessing Officer that the penalty proceeding may kindly kept in abeyance and submit proof of filing the appeal. Again the ld. AR for the assessee submits again reply of notice dated 20.06.2022 and prayed for the same. Further, once again the ld. AR for the assesse....