Sandeep Ramniwas Agrawal, Jalna V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 2167/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1708 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHIT S KABRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 273B; 27

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SANDEEP RAMNI W AS AGRAWAL, C/O. C.A. HARSHIT KABRA, 20, IST FLOOR, AMBIKA MARKET, JALNA 431203 PAN NO.AFPPA4342F . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 1(3) JALNA . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARSHIT S. KABRA / REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 13-10-2014 OF THE C IT(A), AURANGABAD RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. B OTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.2168/PN/2014 : 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. / DATE OF HEARING :16.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:17.06.2016 2 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF IRON , STEEL, MS SCRAP ETC. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02-09-200 9 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,88,380/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT EVEN UPTO THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT, I.E. 15-12-2011 AND HAS NOT ATTENDED BEFORE HIM FOR WHICH HE HAD TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S.271 B SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 02-09-2009 ALONG WITH THE TAX AUDIT R EPORT U/S.44AB VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 85832420. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UPLOADED THE RETURN O F INCOME WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT ON 02-09-2009. THE XEROX COPY O F THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 20-05-2009 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND IT W AS REQUESTED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S .271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER FILE D THE PARTICULARS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AS PRESCRIBED. FROM THE VERIFICATION OF THE UPLOADED RETURN, HE NOTED THAT IN HIS AN SWER TO QUESTION - ARE YOU LIABLE FOR AUDIT U/S.44AB? THE ASSES SEE HAS CATEGORICALLY MARKED IN THE BOX PROVIDED AS (X), I.E. NO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE NAME OF THE AUDITOR SIGNING T HE TAX AUDIT REPORT, HIS MEMBERSHIP NUMBER, NAME OF THE AUDITOR A ND PAN NUMBER OF THE AUDITOR AND THE DATE OF AUDIT REPORT ETC. ALL THESE INFORMATIONS WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE RETURN UPLOADED. HE, THEREFORE, INFERRED THAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME THE DETAILS W ERE NOT 3 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 AVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER UPLOADED THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE RETURN FILED ELECTRONICALLY. REJECTING THE VA RIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MORE OR LESS REITERATED TH E SAME SUBMISSIONS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT HAS BEEN NOT ICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FILE TAX AUDIT R EPORT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT FILED THE SAME WITHE R AFTER FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS OBTAINED TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 20-05-2009, HOWEVER, THE SAID AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH SUBMISSION DATED 06-08-2013. THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 24/09/2014 THAT IN PARA-7 (I) OF CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2 009 DATED 21/05/2009, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT AN ASSESSEE SHOULD OBTAIN THE REPORT OF AUDIT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT U/S 44AB OF THE A CT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN AND SHOULD FIL L OUT THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF THE RETURN FORMS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT , HOWEVER, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILLED THE RELEVANT COLUMNS OF RETURN OF INCOME REQUIRING INFORMATION AB OUT THE TAX AUDITOR AND TAX AUDIT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT THE AO. HAS ASKED THE APP ELLANT TO FILE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS BEFO RE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WITH THE AO. FURTHER SECTION 44AB HAS ALSO BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 1995 W.E.F. 01/07/1995 AND IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE SPECIFIED DATE I.E. DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT HAS ALSO B EEN NOTICED THAT FILING OF TAX AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OR FILING OF THE SAME BEFORE DUE DATE OF RETURN U/S 139(1) IS DONE AWAY WITH. IN THIS REGARD, A CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2009 DATED 21/05/200 9 HAS BEEN ISSUED AS A MEASURE OF PRECAUTION PROVIDING THAT THE PA RTICULARS ABOUT TAX AUDITOR AND TAX AUDIT ARE TO BE FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF 4 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 INCOME TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. THE APPELLANT HA S FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAID INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO. IS JUSTIFIED IN LE VYING PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- U/S 271B OF THE ACT. I AM ALSO OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE TAX AUDI T REPORT BEFORE THE AO. WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING O F PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, THE ABOVE DISCU SSION AND REASONS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271B, THE PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S.271B OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE AUDIT REPORT ON 28-05-2009 AND PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 26-08-2009 AND UPLOADED THE RETURN ON 02-09-2009. ALL THESE THINGS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS OBTAINED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFO RE THE SPECIFIED DATE IS BONAFIDE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE TAX WAS PAID ON THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH AND THE RETURN WAS FILED THEREAFTER FOR WHICH A DOUBT CAN BE RAISED IN THE MIN D OF ANYBODY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. SO FAR AS THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT AUDIT REPORT WAS NOT FILED TILL THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO BUT T HERE ARE VALID REASONS FOR THE SAME WHICH IS DUE TO THE MARRIAGE O F THE SON OF THE TAX CONSULTANT AND ILLNESS OF THE YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE TAX CONSULTANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF THE TAX AU DIT REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCE EDINGS. HE AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND THEREFORE NO PENALTY U/S.271B IS CALLED FOR. 5 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS WHILE UPHOLDING THE PENAL TY OF RS.1 LAKH LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDER ED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1B READS AS UNDER : IF ANY PERSON FAILS [***] TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OR YEARS RELEVANT TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR [FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AB], THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM EQUAL TO ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE TOT AL SALES, TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN BUSINESS, OR OF T HE GROSS RECEIPTS IN PROFESSION, IN SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR OR YEARS OR A SUM OF [ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES], WHICHEVER IS LESS.] 10. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE CLEAR THAT THE LEVY OF PE NALTY FOR FAILURE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED OR FURNISHING OF REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT REPORT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB IS DISCRETIONARY. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT ON 28-05-2009 BEFORE THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UPLOADED THE RETURN ON 02-09-2009 AND HAS ALSO PAID SE LF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 26-08-2009, A FACT STATED BY THE LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING B EFORE US AND NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE. WE THEREFORE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT HIS ACCOUN TS AUDITED U/S.44AB MUCH BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE WHICH IN THE INSTA NT 6 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 CASE IS 30-09-2009. IN OUR OPINION, HAD THE ACCOUNTS NOT BEEN AUDITED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AND PAID THE SAME ON 26-08-2009 AND C OULD NOT HAVE UPLOADED THE RETURN ON 02-09-2009 ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE FIGURES OF THE AUDITED ACCOU NTS DO NOT TALLY WITH THE FIGURES OF THE UPLOADED BALANCE SHEET A ND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THERE MAY BE CERTAIN ERRORS IN NOT FILLING UP CERTAIN COLUMNS IN THE UPLOADED RETURN BUT THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AO H AS NOT OBTAINED ANY MATERIAL FROM THE CONCERNED AUDITOR WHO HA S SIGNED THE AUDIT REPORT THAT HE HAS NOT AUDITED THE SAME ON 28-05-2009. 11. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B PENALTY SHALL NO T BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION U/S.44AB IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE AUDIT REPORT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT SUCH FAILURE HAS BEEN EXPLAINE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS DUE TO NON-APPEARA NCE BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE M ARRIAGE OF HIS SON AND THE ILLNESS OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED, PAID THE TAX AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME MUCH BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFORE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY 7 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.2167/PN/2014 : 12. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000 /- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 13. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,88,380/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) DATED 26-08-2010 REQ UIRING THE COMPLIANCE ON 15-09-2010. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 03 -05- 2011 FIXING THE HEARING ON 18-05-2011. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 23-11-2011 WAS ISSUED FI XING THE HEARING ON 05-12-2011. AGAIN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANC E, THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07-1 2-2011 FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) REQUIRING COMPLIANCE ON 14-12- 2011. AGAIN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 DETERMINING THE TOTAL IN COME AT RS.16,50,517/- AND ALSO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CO MPLY WITH NOTICES ISSUED WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE U/S.273B OF THE I.T. ACT. 14. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WA S NO COMPLIANCE ON 15-09-2010, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ATTENDE D THE OFFICE OF THE AO ON 18-05-2011 AT 10.30 AM BUT THE AO DI D NOT 8 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 REACH THE OFFICE FROM AURANGABAD. SIMILARLY, ON 05-12-2011 THE ADVOCATE TO WHOM THE NOTICE WAS SENT WAS BUSY IN MARR IAGE FUNCTION OF HIS SON TILL 30-11-2011 AND ON 05-12-2011 HIS YOUNGER BROTHER WAS DETECTED WITH BRAIN CANCER FOR WHIC H HAD TO GO TO MUMBAI FOR OPERATION ON 10-12-2011. 15. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THA T THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED THE ADJOUR NMENT OR WHEN HE HAS ATTENDED, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED WRITTEN LETTER S TO THE AO ABOUT THE FACT OF ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OR ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLIANCE WAS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE REASONABLE CAUS E FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE AS ENVISAGED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 73B OF THE I.T. ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIE D U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 16. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE STATUTORY NO TICES FOR WHICH THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE TH E REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCES OF NOTICES. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A DVOCATE WAS BUSY IN MARRIAGE FUNCTION OF HIS SON TILL 30-11-2011 AND 9 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 THEREAFTER FROM 05-12-2011 ONWARDS HE WAS BUSY WITH TH E TREATMENT OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER WHO WAS DETECTED WITH BRAIN CANCER AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE DIED. THIS IN OUR OPINION IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE TO THE STATUTORY NO TICES. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E SUCH AS MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD AND MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF T HE YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE ADVOCATE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CA SE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE FOR NON COMPLIANCE TO SUCH STATUTORY NOTICES. HOWEVER, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE BAR THAT THE YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE TAX CONSULTANT EXPIRED SUBSEQUE NT TO THE OPERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASON ABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON COMPLIANCE TO SUCH STATUTORY NOTICES. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- L EVIED U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDING LY. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-06-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 17 TH JUNE, 2016. 10 ITA NOS.2167 & 2168/PN/2014 ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-AURANGABAD $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE