TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 the appeals for A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in appeals for A.Y. 2017-18 to 2019- 20, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. For appreciation of fact, the appeal in ITA No. 362/Srt/2022 for A.Y. 2013-14 is treated as 'lead' case, wherein, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the f acts and in th e circumstanc es of the cas e as well as law on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 14/02/2021 asking the assessee as to why penalty be not levied for noncompliance 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. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, in levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by taking a view that assessee has not filed his submissions during the appellate proceedings and failed to availed the opportunity for filing his submission. The assessee was allowed three ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under section 272A(1)(d) and in absence of such satisfaction, the order of penalty is not sustainable. 6. The ld. AR for the assesse further submits that more than 106 appeals were filed by assessee and his group against levying of similar penalties and in 99 appeals the ld. CIT(A) either accepted the submission of assessee and quashed the penalty order and in some cases, the penalty was upheld. In this batch of seven appeals, the ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has not made compliance to the notices issued from his office. In fact, notice was issued through the e-mail address of assessees earlier representative and such notice was not communicated to the assessee. The assessee has no intention to avoid compliance of such notice when the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptance of return of income has no effect on noncompliance of notice during the assessment. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) is levied for noncompliance of notice issued by Assessing Officer or by ld. CIT(A). The assessee was given full opportunity before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act as the case may be. From the order of lower authorities, it is clearly discernible that assessee is in habit for non-compliance. This is a fit case for levy of penalty, as has been levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). So far as objection of ld AR for the assessee that no satisfaction is recorded in the assessment order for levying penalty under section 271(1)(b), the ld Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. I further find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by the ld. AR for the assessee in his submission. Thus, considering the fact that assessment in the present case was completed under Section 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, I find that it was sufficient compliance, merely because the assessee could not make compliance for single hearing due to some bonafide reason on the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. I find that in the present case, the assessing officer in the assessment order recorded that the assessee made compliance of notice dated 03.02.2021, at the same t....