Case Law Details
Vinars Enterprise Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Non-response to notice is because of disputes between Partners & Inadequate time to reply, so levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) deleted.
The main submission of the assessee is that the assessing officer has given only 15 days’ time to respond to the notices which is inadequate, therefore penalty for non-compliance should not be levied and relied upon few case laws. The assessee also claimed the disputes between the partners which prevented from not participating in the assessment proceedings and therefore request to delete the penalty.
Revenue supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and held that the Ld. CIT(A) has confined the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) only to the notices which was duly served and not complied by the assessee. The assessee would have requested the Assessing Officer for extension of time to reply the notices issued to it, however assessee has not responded to any of the notices which has resulted in for passing ex parte assessment orders by the A.O. Therefore the levy of penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed.
ITAT held that Ld. CIT(A) partially deleted the penalty levied against the assessee, wherein notices have been served to the assessee beyond the date of hearing or service of notices is not proved by the ld. A.O. Thus literally only one proper notice was served to the assessee, wherein adequate time is not given to the assessee to file its reply. Further as explained by the assessee, non-response to the notice is because of disputes between the Partners, considering the facts of the present case, the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
