TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.800/Kol/2016 relating to A.Y. 2007-08 as lead case. 3. The ground as raised by the assessee reads as under:- "1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty to the tune of Rs.30,000/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire penalty of Rs.30,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for non appearance during the course of assessment proceeding. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal." 4. The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order of AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Rice and the flour milling, supply of essential commodities to Government of West Bengal. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates but the assessee failed to comply the same. The necessary details stand as under. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Paul shows that he was operated in Appollo Hospital on 20.5.2011 and duly discharged on 06.06.2011. Later on he was hospitalized for two days in February/March, 2013. 5.1 The penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is imposed on the assessee for the noncompliance to the notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act issued on 26.06.2013, 01.07.2013 and 13.12.2013 wherein request was made to the se to appear on 08.07.2013, 12.07.2013 and 20.02.2013. Reference is made to the operation of Shri Paul in 2011 and two days hospitalization in February/March 2013. 5.2 It is seen that Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul was not in the hospital during the period when non-compliance took place. It is also seen that the appellant, besides not informing the Assessing Officer about the said medical reason during the assessment proceeding or subsequently during the penalty proceedings, did not mention a word about it at the time of the filing of appeal or even later till 10.02.2016. The appeal in this case was filed on 14.11.2014. Even after that the appellant did not refer to this as the reasons for the non-compliance during the assessment proceeding which resulted into the initiation and subsequently imposition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Shri Paul was the only reason. It is seen that the appellant has made a plea while requesting for the condonation of delay in the filing of appeal. At that point of time the appellant has submitted that "the Cost Accountant Shri Gurudas Dey was on leave so the delay in the filing of appeal." Shri Grudas Dey is the Ld. A/R of the appellant in this case. Thus it is seen that the said excuse, that one person in family was not well so no compliance, is not considered valid. In course of appeal proceeding, the Ld A/R failed to explain as to why the illness of Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, which is the only excuse for non-compliance, was not brought to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during assessment/penalty proceeding or later, at the time the filing of instant appeal, or for that matter till 10.02.2016 and secondly, how did he referred illness prevented the appellant in complying through any authorized representative? 5.5 The Ld A/R could not reply to the above but argued repeatedly that due to the illness of Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, the non-compliances took place. This is no reasonable explanation. The A/R was also requested to inform whether all activities of the appellant st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector of Income tax reported in 115 TTJ (Del) 419. The relevant extract reads as under:- "2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO. Therefore, in such circumstances, there could have been no reason to come to the conclusion that the default was willful". On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the medical certificates were not produced before the AO to justify that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to response the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld. DR also contended that the assessee in the instant case was intentionally delaying the proceedings to take the assessment at the fag-end in order to divert the attention of the AO. He vehemently supported the order of lower authorities. 8. In rejoinder, Ld AR submitted that all the medicals bills were duly produced before the Ld CIT(A) and he got co-terminus power to verify the same but he failed to do so. The Ld AR also submitted that the penalty cannot be imposed on ....