PUNJAB ZOOS DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHD, CHANDIGARH

An assessment has been framed against the assessee u/s 143(3) on 13-12-2019 wherein various notices issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on 24-09-2019, 15-11-2019 & 21-11-2019 were not responded to by the assessee. For non-compliances by the assessee, Ld. AO proposed impugned penalty on the assessee. The assessee assailed penalty on the ground that assessment order was subject matter of further appeal. However, on the issue of proposed penalty for non-compliance of notices, the assessee did not file any explanation. Accordingly, Ld AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.30,000/- for each of these defaults. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The assessee, indeed, has defaulted in complying with identical notices as issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on three different occasions. However, it could be seen that penalty has been levied for three identical defaults which are recurring in nature. The Ld. AO could have framed assessment immediately after serving initial notice only. Therefore, we restrict the impugned penalty to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only for first default. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.