2023 (11) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs. 3,50361/- should have been levied. 4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty should have been levied on the returned income." 2. The effective ground raised in this appeal relates to the penalty notice being illegal and the penalty order barred by time. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment was re-opened by the Assessing Officer ("AO") on the basis that the assessee had not filed return of income despite having received salary income. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the assessee had filed return of income. The AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT Delhi In ITA No. 1861/DEL/2017 relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Keshu Ramsay vs JCIT reported at 5 SOT 9 (Mum): "wherein, it has been held that "Where no proceedings relevant to that assessment year is pending when penalty notice was issued, is bad in law. In view of above the penalty notice issued after completion of assessment proceedings may be held as illegal" 2. G.N. 2. TO 4 The appellant is a Salaried women. Details of Salary received by two Employers during the A.Y. 2012-13 and TDS deducted by those Employers of the assessee is as follows: S.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) 1. Income chargeable under the head salary (01.04.2011 to 04.07.2011) by BA Continuum India Pvt.Ltd. 4,22,847 2. Income ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....74 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23-03-2021 and fixed hearing for 05-04-2021 for submission of reply for not imposing penalty u/s 271 and the assessee has submitted his reply on 02-04-2021. (Refer Para- 2 of the Assessment order under Section 271(1)(c) Page No.........) 4) The Income Tax Officer did not appreciate the contention of the assessee and her adherence to full fill the compliance towards Income Tax department after receiving the Notice under section. 148 and under section 143(2) of the Act and erred by imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,50,361/- for the assessment year 2012-13 vide its order dated 29/12/2021. 5) ITA No. 512/JP/2013 Assessment Year:2006-07 Associated Stone Industries (Appellant) vs ACIT (Respondent) Date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and as a result, found that there were substantial discrepancies by way of manipulation of stocks, omission of sales, Inflation of purchases, making out of bogus bills, etc. He accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,72,775 by his assessment order.................. The ITO, by that order, Initiated action for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) Para-5: Sir Sadilal Sagar & General Mills case. (A.Y. 1958-59) The assessee company, which derived its income from the manufacture and sale of sugar and confectionery, was assessed for the years 1958-59 by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1922 by making additions of Rs. 48,500 for cane cost, Rs. 67,500 for shortage in cane. Later in the year 1963 the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tificates for the same to the Assessee. Assessee filed the return as soon as received the notice for filing the same, paid the balance tax liability as assessed by the department, paid further the Interest on delayed payment of Income Tax for entire delayed period. In view of the above it is the humble request to consider all facts, kindly accept my appeal and delete the demand." 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the impugned order. He contended that the assessee failed to file return of income. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the non-filing of return of income by the assessee as concealment of particulars of income. He contended that case laws as relied by the assessee are distinguish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... So far the employer is concerned, there is no default reported by the lower authority. The default on the part of the assessee is regarding non-filing of the Income Tax return. The factum of receipt of salary came into notice of AO through 26AS. The explanation regarding non-filing of income tax return is stated that the assessee was under impression that if the tax is deducted at source, she is not required to file income tax return. But when she received notice u/s 148 of the Act, she duly filed her income tax return and disclosed all her income. 10. In our considered view, the levy of penalty is not automatic. If the assessee makes out a case that the default was due to reasonable cause in that case, no penalty would be called for in ....