TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned ACIT, Central-2, Indore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 272A(1)(d) 20,000/- 2 883/Ind/2025 Prateek Syndicate Order of first-appeal dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal ["Ld. CIT(A)"] Penalty order dated 14.12.2023 passed by learned ACIT, Central-2, Indore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 272A(1)(d) 30,000/- 3 884/Ind/2025 Pradeep & Company Order of first-appeal dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal ["Ld. CIT(A)"] Penalty order dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned ACIT, Central-2, Indore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 272A(1)(d) 30,000/- 4 885/Ind/2025 Orange Infracon Private Limited Order of first-appeal dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal ["Ld. CIT(A)"] Penalty order dated 14.12.2023 passed by learned ACIT, Central-2, Indore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 272A(1)(d) 30,000/- 5 886/Ind/2025 BCM Realty Private Limited Order of first-appeal dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned CIT(A)-3, Bhopal ["Ld. CIT(A)"] Penalty order dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned ACIT, Central-2, Indore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 272A(1)(d) 20,000/- 6 888/Ind/2025 Maarg Realtech LLP Order of first-appeal dated 28.08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3/BPL/IT-10024/2021-22 It was accordingly urged that the same view ought to be applied in present appeals and the penalties be deleted. 3. Ld. DR for revenue, though dutifully supporting the orders of the lower authorities, was unable to controvert or distinguish the submissions advanced by Ld. AR nor could he point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of present cases vis-à-vis the matters of group concerns already decided by Ld. CIT(A) in favour of those concerns/assessees. 4. We have carefully considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material placed on record. We find that the facts and circumstances in present cases are identical to those in the cases of other/ group concerns referred to above, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has already granted relief by deleting the penalties. For the sake of ready reference, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in one such case is reproduced hereunder: 5. The position of law is well-settled that a penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained where the assessment itself has been completed u/s 143(3) upon consideration of the assessee's submissions, and no adverse inference is finally drawn by AO for non-complia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds of Appeals if and when, necessity or occasion arises. 1.1 The Assessing Officer ("the AO"), vide this office notice dated 30/07/2025 was asked to confirm the facts having a bearing on the statutory validity of appeals w.r.t. provision of section 249(4)/249(2) of TE Document 2 the Act. The AO was also asked to specify whether he/she would like to be present at the time of hearing in view of provision of section 250(2)(b)of the Act. In response to the notice, the concerned AO failed to submit any report, hence I have a bonafide belief that the appeals are within limitation period and due taxes have been paid by the appellant and appeals are statutorily valid. In absence of any specific request from the A.O. it is presumed that the AO does not want to attend the hearings personally. 2. CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE 2.1 The Search and Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in BCM group of Indore on 02/02/2023. Search was also conducted in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, case was selected under compulsory scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the 'Act' and notice u/s 143(2) of the "Act' was issued on 26/06/2023. Further notice u/s 142(1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act in al the cases of the assessees in the present appeals. Therefore, the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Incometax; (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del) squarely applies to the facts of the present appeals. The learned DR could not cite any contrary decision. We, therefore, respectfuly following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Incometax; (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (Del) wherein it was held that where the assessee had not complied with notice under section 142(1) but assessment order was passed under section 143(3) and not under section 144, that meant that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and defaults committed earlier were ignored by Assessing Officer and, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justified, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act in these appeals. This ground of the assessees is allowed in all these appeals. Similarly, Hon'ble Allahab....