WELLDONE REAL ESTATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC 39, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 15.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-52, Mumbai dated 19.2.2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. The order passed by the Ld CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and without appreciating the facts of the case in their proper perspective.

During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal. Again aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that certainly, in the mind of the assessee, there is no spirit of non-compliance to the notices issued by the AO. It is basically the pressure of work and the defects relating to the management of time that forced the assessee to not to comply with the said noticed immediately. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is not the case of non-compliance to the assessment proceedings; but, merely a case of “belated compliance”. In any case, assessee complied and cooperated with the AO in computing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. In these circumstances, as per the Ld Counsel, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be sustained. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain vs. ACIT in to 464/Mum/2013 (AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11), dated 23.9.2015 and ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhavan Trust vs. ADIT [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (Delhi) and prayed for deciding the present appeals in the lines of the said decisions of the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both the parties and on considering the above detailed factual matrix of each of the case, I am of the opinion, the assessee under consideration is eligible for relief. Further, I have also perused the cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) which are relevant for the proposition that where the assessee had not complied with the notice u/s 142(1) but the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act, that meant the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was not justified. Considering the same as well as respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal and also following the principle of consistency, we are