AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-29, Delhi dated 21.07.2023.
On perusal of the impugned penalty orders, it is clear that the AO issued show cause notice dated 17/01/2023 for each of the above 7 assessment years u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the respective assessment years. Copies of all those 7 notices issued as above are attached at PB page nos. 1 to 7.
All these 7 notices desired replies from the assessee by 11.00 am on 19/01/2023 i.e. within 2 days from the date of those notices.
The said notices were digitally signed on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023, 1.29 PM (the 7 notices have been digitally signed from 1:21 PM to 1:29 PM) whereas the date of hearing mentioned was 11:00 AM on 19/01/2023, i.e., even before issuing of those notices.
It is also strange as to how the Addl. CIT approved the said penalties on 23/01/2023 without noticing the action of the AO. Thus, the impugned penalties must be cancelled right away without any second thought.
Reliance is being placed on the following case laws wherein it was held that the penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act where the notices were complied with later on and the complete information could not be submitted due to circumstances beyond his control:
(а) Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak vs ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ Delhi 419 [DoD: 10/08/20071
(b) Globus Infocom Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 738/Del/2014 before the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi [DoD: 29/06/2016]
(c) Jai Gopal Sondhi vs ITO in ITA no. 6305/Del/2017 before the Hon' ble ITAT, New Delhi [DoD: 28/10/2020]
(d) Parmeshwari Textiles vs ITO (2005) 92 TTJ Jodh 764 [DoD: 24/06/2004]
(e) Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs ACIT in ITA 6203/Del/2019 [DoD: 31/03/2021]
(1) Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT before the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi [DoD: 10/04/2017]
(g) Manish Periwal before the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi [DoD: 08/06/2017]
(h) Manish Periwal before the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi (Miscellaneous Application) [DoD: 13/09/2017]
(i) Sanjay Vasantrao Wani vs ITO in ITA 1607/PUN/2017 [DoD: 22/08/2019]
(j) Pillala Vishnu Vandana vs ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 803 (Visakhapatnam-Trib) [DoD: 06/01/2017]
(k) Mukesh Jain vs ACIT in ITA 6925 to 6931/Del/2014 [DoD: 22/09/2017] (1) Yogesh Mittal vs DCIT in ITA 281 to 283/Del/2018 [01/08/2018]
(m) Fashion Design Council of India vs ADIT (2010) 29 CCH 0921 [DoD: 23/04/20107
(n) Anurag Dalmia vs DCIT in ITA 3802 to 3808/Del/2014 [DoD: 06/05/2020]
(0) Anil Kumar Seth vs DCIT in ITA 4216 to 4222/Del/2019 [DoD: 10/08/2021]
(p) Mastana Foods (P) Ltd vs DCIT in ITA 4389 to 4393/Del/2019 DoD: 25/11/20207
Since the time given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee is even before the signing of notice resulting in logical impossibility of compliance to the notice. Hence, the penalty orders are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.