AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the appeals for A.Y. 2012-13 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 and 2018-19, the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. For appreciation of fact, the appeal in ITA No. 141/Srt/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 is treated as 'lead' case, wherein, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(b). The assessing officer while passing impugned order noted that vide notice dated 02/12/2020, the date of hearing for compliance was fixed on 14/12/2020, the assessee sought adjournment and the date was fixed for compliance on 01/1/2021. On 01/01/2021, the case was further adjourned to 11/01/2021.The assessee defaulted in making compliance of notice dated 02/12/2020. 4. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23/01/2021 asking the assessee 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 the assessee. The Assessing Officer in para 5 of his order, recorded that vide notice dated 02/12/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 144 for non-compliance. Once the assessment is completed and no addition is made, non-compliance is deemed to have been waived. The assessee relied on various case laws. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee has held that merely because complete details were filed by assessee during the assessment proceedings will not mitigate the default committed twice. Further because the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, such act will not exonerate the assessee in defaulting to appear before the Assessing Officer on two occasions. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty for two defaults. The ld. CIT(A) held that he is of the opinion that out of Rs. 20,000/- penalty levied by the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious statutory provisions. The ld. AR submits that due to nationwide severe pandemic infection, the assessee as well as his representative was taking proper care and caution and this fact was informed to the lower authorities. The ld AR for the assessee submits that before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed his detail submissions and has shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 273B.The ld. AR submits that the Coordinate Bench 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 copy of compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. We find that before ld CIT(A) the assessee specifically contended that there was severe Covid-19 pandemic during the relevant period and everybody is doing work with safety measures and that his Accountant were busy in audit work. The submissions of assessee was not accepted as bonafide explanation with the scope of section 273B. Though, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for two default, however, the ld CIT(A) restricted it to one default only. In our view, the assesse has shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 273B in his submissions before ld CIT(A) and the ld CIT(A) ought to have accepted the same. In our view the assessee has shown sufficient ....