SHAMIM BANO RATHI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 20(3), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “

The penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT. Act 961, by the learned Assessing Officer imposing penalty at His 10,0001 and upheld by the learned CIT(A), is ab-initio void, inasmuch as, no specific showcause notice alleging the nature of infringement was communicated prior to levy of impugned penalty 4. The learned lower authorites have grossly erred in levying / upholding of levy of penalty, without appreciating the fact that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause for non- attendance. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and judicial propositions, the penalty in Trader is wholly unwarranted. 06 the appellant may please be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground on or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income to the tune of Rs.65,39,880/- on 01.10.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2006-2007. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2006-07. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 28.03.2013 and served upon the assessee on 29.03.2013. Further, a notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 26.08.2013 which was also served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the show cause notice was also issued which was served upon the 01.03.2014 but nobody attended the proceeding, thereafter, the penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was levied in view of the provision u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee therefore, the present appeal has been filed before us.