2023 (10) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer erred in not considering the replies filed by the assessee online in response to notices issued u/s 142(1) and 271(1)(b) of the Act on 25.10.2018, 29.10.2018 and 13.10.2018. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the impugned failure on the part of the appellant was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and that there was no willful attempt on the part of the appellant for non-compliance to the Notice. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had not responded, hence a penalty of Rs. 10,000 /- was imposed on the assessee for his negligence. 5. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and upheld by the learned CIT (A), drew the attention of the Bench to page 14 and 15 of the order passed by the learned CIT (A). It was the contention of the learned AR that the assessee had filed the reply to the show cause notice issued in the quantum proceedings and had also filed the return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 142 of the Act. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer, after considering the record available on record has passed the order u/s 143/147 of the I.T. Act. 6. Per contra, the learn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e notice u/s 142(1) or not. The record shows that the Assessing Officer made the addition u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act in the hands of the assessee which was upheld learned CIT (A). Though the learned CIT (A) in the order has mentioned that the reply was filed by the assessee after passing the order dated 8.10.2018 by the Assessing Officer on 13.10.2018 and before the ACIT, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad. In our view the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is a technical penalty and normally is required to be levied when there is a willful default on the part of the assessee for noncompliance in filing the document/information in response to the notice of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the assessee, despite several opportunities, h....