JATINDER SINGH KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The common issues are involved in all these appeals which were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenient and brevity.

The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals relates to the sustenance of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each year levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). to 5413/Del/2016 2 Jatinder Singh Kohli 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO received AIR information regarding certain high value transaction entered into by the assessee, on the basis of the said informations, the AO issued a letter on 22.07.2013 and asked the assessee to submit copy of acknowledgement of Income Tax Return filed and if the return was not filed, the reasons for not filing the same. But there was no response from the assessee. Subsequently, the AO issued another letter dated 15.07.2015, in response to the said letter, the assessee filed his reply alongwith the acknowledgement of return for the relevant assessment years. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 07.08.2015, which was not complied with. The AO issued a show-cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of statutory notice and fixed the hearing on 01.09.2015. As there was no compliance the AO levied the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that he had replied to the first letter issued by the AO dated 22.07.2013 on 02.08.2013 by enclosing a copy of return filed and even the letter dated 15.07.2015 was replied on 24.07.2015. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. to 5413/Del/2016 3 Jatinder Singh Kohli 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the AO only referred to non- filing of return of income tax by the assessee which was duly replied. Therefore, there was no reason to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 7. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for non compliance of the notices issued. On the contrary, the claim of the assessee is that the informations which were required by the AO were already filed under PAN AHYPK8830B which was stated to be used since the beginning and he had no knowledge of another PAN AAGPJ1274R as stated in the notice dated 15.07.2015. The aforesaid facts are mentioned by the assessee in the statement of the facts attached with the appeal. The said facts were not controverted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee made the compliance to the notices issued by the AO, as such penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and to 5413/Del/2016 4 Jatinder Singh Kohli confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/12/2016)