2025 (6) TMI 1938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id order which is extracted as follows for the sake of completeness: "During the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 25.06.2018 via ITBA portal. Vide the notice; the assessee was required to furnish some document on 29.06.2018. On 29.06.2018, the assessee requested to adjourn the date for next 10 days which was duly considered and the next date of hearing was fixed on 09.07.2018. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee on or before the stipulated date. Further, the assessee did not furnish any reason/explanation in respect of the show-cause notice dated 13.07.2018 fixing hearing date on 17.07.2018. The assessee made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on satisfying that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 25.06.2018, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was levied vide order u/s 271(1)(b) I.T. Act on 18.07.2018. 5.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has ground of appeal stating that the AO has erred in levying of penalty, whereas the appellant has not submitted any valid reason preventing him from responding to the statutory notices twice. The appellant, in the penalty proceedings has only stated that the assessment order during the proceedings of which the penalty was levied is under appeal and hence, the penalty order may be kept abeyance. whereas the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al raised by the appellant on these issues lack merits and requires to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 4. If we read the order of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act simultaneously with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it would be absolutely clear that while upholding the order of penalty by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, there has been no application of mind and even the facts have been mentioned in wrong manner by it. The penalty has been levied for Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC at Para 5.5 noted that "the A.O was right in levying penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act". This shows a gross negligence on the part of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/N....