M/S CHOGORI DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of certain notices issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer from time to time.

The Assessing Officer in the impugned penalty order has noted that various notices were issued to the assessee which remained un-complied with, the details of which have been incorporated in the impugned penalty order as well as the in order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed the said penalty order on the ground that non-compliance of certain notices establishes non-cooperative attitude of the assessee.

After hearing both the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, first of all it is noticed that the assessment has been completed under section 143(3), wherein the revised return filed by the assessee declaring loss of Rs.65,54,893/- has been accepted by the Assessing Officer after calling for various records from the assessee. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer in this regard in the assessment order is as under:- “The assessee company filed its return digitally on 29.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.65,54,893/- in the computation of income. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return of income, declaring a loss of Rs.65,54,893/. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 was served upon the assessee company selecting the case for scrutiny. Questionnaire was served upon the assessee along with the notice u/s 142(1) dated 12.09.2014, asking to submit the required information. In response to the statutory notices Shri Pratap Gupta, CA/AR appeared from time to time and filed necessary details, which are placed on record. Books of accounts were produced, were examined on test check basis and the case was discussed with him.

2. The case was selected through CASS for examining the details in complete manner with specific emphasis on the following items/information available in the return of income filed by the assessee company:- > High Ratio of Refund to TDS 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading of Branded Footwear items of Crocs arid Hitec as a Distributor. Details with regard to the same were called for, examined and placed on record. After examination of details filed and discussion with the AR, revised returned loss of Rs.65,54,893/- is accepted.” [Emphasis added is ours] 5. Though there may have been non-compliance on certain dates/notices, but ultimately all the due compliance and replies have been filed by the assessee and had participated in the proceedings through its authorised representatives before the Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee had contended that the time allowed for compliance of notice dated 30/9/2014 was not sufficient and questionnaire also were not specific, therefore, assessee could not make proper compliance. However, later on assessee had filed all the details, which have been duly examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer. In the light of these facts, penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of particular notice is merely technical and venial in nature, and therefore, we do not find that it fit to be case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b). Accordingly, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted.