TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n for condonation of delay, which is placed on record, in which the assessee has submitted that the order passed by ld. CIT(Appeals) was not physically received by the assessee and in fact it was sent by email by department, which email communication went into the spam/junk folder and the assessee did not see the spam/junk folder. It was only when the assessee opened the portal to download the returns/assessment orders for the last three years in order to submit to the Bank for availing bank finance that the assessee came to know that there is an order passed by ld. CIT(A) dated 27.01.2023 upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee hardly uses this email Id, which is specifically created for Income-tax purposes and which is hardly used for any other purposes. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3). The ld. Sr. DR did not have any serious objections to the condonation of delay of 24 days in filing this appeal belatedly by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) with ITAT.. I have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag &Ors. vs Mst. Katiji&Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under the provisions of section 147 of the Act, and notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2017 was issued by the AO to the assessee. Assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings and filed adjournment application by physically being present before the Assessing Officer on 10.08.2017. Case was adjourned by AO to 16.08.2017, and the assessee himself was again present before the Assessing Officer and filed computation of income, financial statements, Income & Expenditure account, capital account, purchase deed etc.. Assessee again appeared on 21.08.2017 himself before the Assessing Officer, and made various explanations. On 13.09.2017, the assessee's counsel Shri S.C. Jain, CA appeared before the Assessing Officer and submitted explanations and evidences to support the case of the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued by the AO on 04.10.2017 calling for certain explanations and fixing the case for hearing on 25.10.2017. On 25.10.2017, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of learned Assessing Officer, assessee filed the computation of Income, Trading and Profit and loss account, capital account, Balance Sheet of his above proprietary firm with his business address. Income tax assessment in the case was framed on 14.11.2017 u/s 144 for which assessee has preferred appeal separately. On 13-11-2017 as was fixed for hearing in the case as referred by the Assessing Officer in the order, assessee attended office of learned Assessing Officer for seeking adjournment and submitted that his authorized representative is out of station. However, learned Assessing Officer did not grant any adjournment and even refused to receive application depriving opportunity to the assessee to explain his case, in violation of principle of natural justice. Moreover, cause register was not available in the office to mark attendance. 12-12-2017, as alleged fixed by the learned Assessing Officer, for compliance of penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b), no such notice was received by the assessee. No other notice or reminder was issued by the learned Assessing Officer subsequently but suddenly he imposed penalty on 07-05-2018, almost after 5 months of alleged penalty notice issued, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable in Agra on 13.11.2017, as he was in Bangalore due to quality review functions assigned to him by ICAI u/s. 288 of the Chartered Accountants Act, as a technical reviewer to conduct quality review of M/s. B.K.Ramdhani & Co LLP, Bangalore, from 12.11.2017 to 17.11.2017, which was main reason that there was no appearance before the Assessing Officer. Further, it is stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri S C Jain, CA before the Bench that the assessee himself attended the office of the Assessing Officer on 13.11.2017 for seeking adjournment and to submit that the AR of the assessee was out of station, but the Assessing Officer refused to receive the ajournment application and explanations of the assessee. Reassessment order was passed on the very next day i.e., 14.11.2017. It was submitted that on 13.11.2017, even the cause register was not available in the office of the AO to mark attendance on 13.11.2017. It was prayed that the penalty as imposed by the AO be deleted. 5.2 Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed that penalty levied by the AO and as confirmed by ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment order in quantum. The assessee also participated in the appellate proceedings conducted by ld. CIT(A) against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b). The assessee is also appearing through his counsel before the ITAT against penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b).Thus, the conduct of the assessee is through out of participating in the proceedings conducted by authorities. The ld. CIT(A) also did not verified the contentions and explanations submitted by the assessee for non-compliance of notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1) dated 04.10.2017 and 03.11.2017, and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000 was confirmed. There is another aspect to the matter. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.10.2017, as is discernible from reassessment order. The notice u/s 271(1)(b) was stated to be issued by the AO on 14.11.2017. No further notice u/s 271(1)(b) was issued by the AO before levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) vide orders dated 07.05.2018.The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non compliance to notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.10.2017 and 03.11.2017, while as per reassessment order placed on record, the penalty procee....