SH. RAJNI GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

First I will deal with the appeal in for the assessment year 2005-06 in the case of Smt. Chandrawati Gupta. Following ground has been raised in this appeal:

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the assessee under section 271(1)(b) is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, penalty imposed should be deleted.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee in response to notice u/s 153A/153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed the return of income on 13.02.2012. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued on 19.09.2012 fixing the case for hearing on 09.10.2012. On the said date nobody attended, nor any reply had been received from the assessee. The AO considered the same as the violation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that Mrs. Anju Gupta, sister-in-law of the assessee was suffering from severe disease and had to be hospitalized on 06.10.2012. Thereafter on 09.10.2012, Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta head of the family and father-in-law of the assessee had to be hospitalized due to heart attack and the whole family was disturbed, therefore, there was no compliance for the notices of hearing on 09.10.2012.

The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee did not give any such reply before the AO. However, he had taken note of this fact that the assessee had duly replied to the letters of the AO on subsequent dates. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessment proceedings were time barring in nature, therefore, the AO was in race against time, but the details required by him had not been filed and if the AO was to get all the details at the 11th hour, it would not be appropriate for completing the assessment.

During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Smt. Usha Gupta, New Delhi Vs ACIT in which has been heard on 14.10.2015. Therefore, same course is to be adopted for these appeals. The ld. DR although supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the facts in the present cases are similar to the facts involved in the case of Smt. Usha Gupta (supra).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the facts are identical to the facts involved in the case of Smt. Usha Gupta Vs ACIT (supra) and even the rival contentions are to 6286, 6287 to 5 6289 & 6272 to 6274/Del/2014 Chandrawati, Abha & Rajni Guptas also on the same footing as were in the said case in ITA No. 6368/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. I have already disposed off the above said referred to case of Smt. Usha Gupta vide the order of even date and the relevant findings have been given in para 9 of said order which read as under: “9. 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 for non-appearance of the assessee on 09.10.2012, for the said date notices were issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. The explanation of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that her sister-in-law Mrs. Anju Gupta was suffering from severe disease and had to be hospitalized on 06.10.2012. Thereafter on the date of hearing i.e. 09.10.2012, Sh. Satya Prakash Gupta “head of the family” and “father-in-law” of the assessee became ill and had to be hospitalized due to heart attack. In my opinion there was a reasonable cause for non- appearance for the hearing fixed on 09.10.2012, as such the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was not justified. In the present case, it appears that the AO levied the penalty for 7 assessment years running from 2005-06 to 2011-12 and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty for the 4 assessment years i.e. the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, considering the explanation of the assessee as plausible. However, the same explanation was not considered as proper for the remaining assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In my opinion, the stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when he was satisfied that there was a proper and plausible explanation for the 4 out of the 7 assessment years for which penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. I, therefore,