SWARAJ TULI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

As alleged by the Assessing Officer, in response to statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act, assessee never complied. The 2 Smt. Swaraj Tuli Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a notice requiring assessee to show cause, why penalty under section 271(1)(b) shall not be imposed. Though, assessee submitted her explanation explaining reasons for which penalty should not be imposed, but the Assessing Officer, rejecting the explanation of the assessee, passed order imposing penalty of ` 10,000 under section 271(1)(b). Being aggrieved of penalty imposed, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

The learned Commissioner (Appeals), finding no merit in the submissions of the assessee, confirmed imposition of penalty.

At the outset, learned Representative for both the parties agreed before us that similar penalty imposed under identical facts and circumstances in case of another group company viz. M/s. Cabochon Arts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v/s DCIT, ITA no.5952/Mum./2013, etc., order dated 19th February 2015, were deleted by the Tribunal considering the fact that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had appeared and similar penalty imposed earlier was deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As the facts involved in the present appeal are identical, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we delete the penalty.

In the result, appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on