2018 (5) TMI 2187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. 2. The appellant, Income-tax Officer, Ward 73(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue') by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 27.02.2015 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-18, New Delhi qua Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 on the identical ground as under :- "Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deciding that no valid notice was issued and served upon the assessee before imposition of penalty without going into the merits of the issue involved and overlooking the valid service of notice upon the assessee?" 3. For the sake of brevity, since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the aforesaid appeals,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le to be penalized u/s 271C of the Act and has delayed in filing the quarterly e-TDS returns by 3550 days in case of Form No. 24Q and 26Q for FY 2005-06, 999 days for FY 2006-07 and 12387 days for FY 2007-08 and thereby liable to be penalized u/s 271C and 272A(2) (c)/(k) of the Act. 4. AO passed ex-parte order levying the penalty of Rs. 97,44751/- u/s 271C for FY 2007-08 and Rs. 3,55,000/- for FY 2005-06, Rs. 99,900/- for FY 2006-07 and Rs. 12,38,700/- for FY 2007-08 u/s 272A(2) (c)/(k) of the Act in AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 5. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeals before the ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the penalties vide impugned orders by accepting the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... heard or has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard". But, in the instant case, when undisputedly, no notice has been issued to the assessee, who has duly communicated the change of its name and address of its registered office and consequently change in TAN particulars were also carried out by the Revenue department in the records, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law on this score only. 10. Furthermore, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly taken into account period of delay in initiating the penalty by relying upon the decisions rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in PR Associates v. CIT-II in ITA No. 1378/PN/2009 dated 14.11.2011 and CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.- 291 ITR 244 (Raj.). Undisput....