TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. In all these appeals, certain facts are common, the assessee has raised common grounds of appeal, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by this consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) and / or 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal in ITA No. 391/Srt/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 is treated as 'lead' case, wherein, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts an d in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03/02/2021 in his order dated 18/02/2021. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, in levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee also filed appeal against the levy of similar penalty levied vide order dated 18/02/2021, 19/03/2021 and 26/09/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. All those three appeals were clubbed by ld. CIT(A) and was heard in a consolidated manner. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee in all three appeals, submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DR) of the Revenue and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessment order was allegedly passed by Assessing Officer on 04/10/2021 and addition on account of unexplained investment was made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice dated 03/02/2021. The ld. AR submits that in the month of February, 2021, it was a severe period of Covid-19 infection throughout the country and the assessee could not file his response before the Assessing Officer. The assessee subsequently made full compliance, the explanation offered by assessee on various issues was accepted and ultimately no addition was made by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties in Shree Granite Vs DCIT in ITA No. 362 to 368/Srt/2022 order dated 23/01/2023. 6. The ld. AR submits that the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in a series of decisions held that when the assessment has been made under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no cause for levying of such penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee accordingly prayed for deleting the penalty. To support his submission, the ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: Akash Manganlal Patel Vs DCIT ITA No. 141 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. I have also deliberated upon the various case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee. I find that the Assessing Officer allegedly passed the assessment order on 04/10/2021. I noted that the Assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 18/02/2021 i.e. prior to passing the assessment order. I find that the ld. CIT(A) while confirming the action of Assessing Officer held that it is not a case where the assessee totally ignored the notices. The penalty could be imposed for first default and no....