Vaishali Shivhare, Gwalior V. DCIT (Central)-1, Bhopal

ITA 379/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6319 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V J BORICH
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT GAUR CAS
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Reasonable cause; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 208; 132; 144

Judgement Text

ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.361 TO 367/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 SMT. PUSHPA VERMA V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 136, TANSEN NAGAR, BHOPAL GWALIOR PAN: AKZPV3755C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.345 TO 349/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2014-15 M/S. REGENT BEERS & WINES LTD V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 509-510, 5 TH FLOOR, BHOPAL PRINCESS BUSINESS, SKY PARK, SCHEME NO.54, PU-3 COMMERCIAL VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE PAN: AAACR7950D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.353 TO 358/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17 PATEL EDUCATION & WELFARE V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 SOCIETY, INDORE 33-FF, SCHEME NO.54, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE PAN: AAAAP7793G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 2 ITA NO.368 TO 374/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 ARUN KUMAR VERMA V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 136, TANSEN NAGAR, BHOPAL GWALIOR PAN: ADYPV0307L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.375 TO 381/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 MRS.VAISHALI SHIVHARE V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 47, DURGAPURI, BHOPAL TANSEN ROAD, GWALIOR PAN: AHMPR8573N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.389 TO 395/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 RAM SWAROOP SHIVHARE V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 47, DURGAPURI, BHOPAL TANSEN ROAD, GWALIOR PAN: AGHPS8985R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.400/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 306-AD, SCHEME NO.74-C BHOPAL ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 3 VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE PAN: ACFPB4293H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.338 TO 344/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2016-17 SUNIT MADHOK V/S DCIT (CENTRAL)-1 16 DF, SCHEME NO.74 BHOPAL VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE PAN: AFTPM4676E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI V.J. BORICH, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG & SHRI ARPIT GAUR, CAS DATE OF HEARING 2 2 .01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24 .01.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF 47 APPEALS ARE AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE(S) WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL (IN SH ORT CIT(A)] DATED 24.01.2018. 2. AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIM ILAR, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. IT IS AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT FACTS INVO LVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND THE COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE LEVY OF ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 4 PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/- FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES AT GWA LIOR ON 07.01.2016. SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH NOTICE 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NON -COMPLIANCE TO THIS NOTICE FOR WHICH LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INITIAT ED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD DECIDED TO LEVY PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN EACH OF THE CASES UNDER APPEAL BEFOR E US. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) BUT FAILED TO SUCCEED. 6.NOW ALL THESE ASSESSEE(S) ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL RAISING COMMON ISSUES AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR ALL THESE ASSESSEES COMMONLY SUB MITTED THAT ALL THE ASSESSEE(S) WERE PREVENTED FOR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON- APPEARANCE BECAUSE COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS G IVEN VERY LATE AND THE TIME GIVEN TO FURNISH THE REPLY WAS VERY SH ORT FOR MAKING DUE COMPLIANCE AND THUS IT WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE P REVENTING THE ASSESSEE FROM APPEARANCE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON LY 3 TO 4 DAYS OF TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEES FOR REPLYING THE NOTICES RUNNING INTO 24 PAGES COVERING ALMOST 31 ISSUES AND IT WAS HUMANLY NOT POSSIBLE TO REPLY AT SUCH SHORT NOTICE. ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 5 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUNIT MADHOK, ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER ASSESSEE(S) HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY-PARTY, UNDER S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NONE OF THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FR AMED EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUCH ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED AFTER GOING THROUGH TH E VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE RESPECTIVE A SSESSEES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE EARLIER DEFAULT, IF ANY, UNDER S. 142(1) HAS GOT WAIVED. IN EVIDENCE OF SUCH FACT, COPIES OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT O RDERS AT PAGE NO. 177 TO 208 OF PAPER BOOK ARE REFERRED. HE ALSO PLEA DED THAT IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HON'BLE BENCH, INDORE IN THE CASE OF PRAMILA GHODHE VS. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 INDORE' TRIB AND AGAIN, IN THE CASE OF HEMAN KUMAR SONI & ORS. VS. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0350 INDORE TRIB HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER S. 143(3), DEFAULT COMMITTED EARLIER HAS TO B E IGNORED AND ACCORDINGLY, NO PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(B) OF THE A CT CAN BE IMPOSED. COPIES OF BOTH THE JUDGMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGES NO. 220 TO 223 AND 224 TO 227 OF THE PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE I S ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 1. A) MAGNUM FNFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD VS. ACT (2016) 48 CCH 0137 MUM TRIB B) RAMESH KUMAR JAIN VS. DDIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (2015) 45 CCH 0073 MUM TRIB C) SWARNABEN M KHANNA & ORS. VS. DCIT (2009) 28 CCH 0773 AHD TRIB ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 6 9. AS REGARDS, MR. SUNIT MADHOK, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRA MED UNDER S. 153A R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT, IN HIS CASE TOO, THE CO PIES OF LOOSE PAPERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ON THE DESIGNATED DATE OF MAKING COMPLIANCE UNDER S. 142(1). FURTHER, IN T HE CASE OF SUNIT MADHOK, WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS, FOR ALL THE A SSESSMENT YEARS, EXCEPT FOR A.Y. 2016-17, THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. ONLY IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2016-17, AN ADDIT ION OF RS.16,20,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. THUS, IN THE CASE OF SUNIT MA DHOK TOO, NO ADVERSITY COULD BE PRESUMED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE O F THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER S.142(1). 10. PER CONTRA. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CONSIDERED THE FACTS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE JUDGMENTS. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE 47 APPEALS ARE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEES BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000 /- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON-COMPLYING TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 1 42(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH U/S 132 OF T HE ACT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE(S) ON 07.01.2016 AT GWALIOR N OTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S 142(1 ) OF THE ACT DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO REPLY TO VARIOUS QUESTI ONS/ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE TO THIS ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 7 NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WHICH PROMPTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE A CT AND SUBSEQUENTLY LEVIED OF PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN EA CH CASE. 12. IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SUNIT MADHOK, ASSESSMENTS IN ALL THE OTHER ASSESSEE(S) HA VE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH SHOWS THAT P ROPER REPRESENTATION WAS THERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY THE ASSESSEES AND ASSESSEE(S) PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE SATISFACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OF FICER. IN THESE FACTS WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE NOT BEEN FRA MED EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT BUT HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT THAN THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED BY COORDINATE BENCH INDORE IN THE CASE OF PRAMILA GHOD HE VS. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 DATED 20.03.2017 OBSERVING AS FO LLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE TO THE N OTICES ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES. WE ALSO NOTED THAT LD. C OUNSEL ALSO ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO ON 17.12.2015 AND FILED REPL IES IN ALL THE CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A O VERBALLY AGREED BUT COUNSELS PRESENCE WAS NOT RECORDED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N ON- APPEARANCE ON THAT DAY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUST IFICATION FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. SECON DLY, IN THIS MATTER, THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) DUE TO SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCES AND DEFAULT COMM ITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED. WE ALSO BOLSTER OUR VIEW BY P LACING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHI KSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST V. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 419(DEL)/115 IT J 419 ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 8 (DEL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) BUT ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) AND NOT U/S. 144, THAT MEANT THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND DEFAULTS COMMITTE D EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE LE VY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DELETE TH E LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN THESE APPEALS. 13 . UNDER SAME SET OF FACTS RELATING TO PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT, SIMILAR VIEW OF DELETING PENALTY HAS BEEN TAKE N BY COORDINATE BENCH INDORE IN ANOTHER CASE OF HEMANT KUMAR SONI & ORS. VS. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0350 DATED 16.01.2017 WHICH REA DS AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND F ROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THESE GROUP APPEALS THAT T HE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/ S 143(3) OF THE IT. ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY 271(1)(B) FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON 15.10.2015. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEES' COUN SEL APPEARED AND STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT HE APPEARED FOR SEEKING TIME. THE COUNSEL REGULARLY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING S AND THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/ S 143(3) AND NOT U/ S 144. WE FIND THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST NOTICE FOR COMPLIAN CE AND SINCE THE VOLUMINOUS RECORDS AND PAPERS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SCRUTINIZED AND INDIVIDUALLY IN EACH CASE, THE APPR OPRIATE REPLIES WERE TO BE FILED, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR T HE TIME TO SUBMIT THE REPLY AND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED ALL THE N ECESSARY REPLIES AND COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEES HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARA NCE ON THAT DAY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, IN THIS MATTER, THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT, ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 9 THEREFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IF THE ASSESSME NTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THERE IS SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSI DERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCES AND DEFAULT COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED. THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WAS DELETED BY VAR IOUS TRIBUNALS. IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PARTHMIK S HMSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 419 (DEL ), IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE U/S142(1) BUT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3 ) AND NOT U/S 144, THAT MEANT THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPL IANCE AND DEFAULTS COMMITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) O F THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, HENCE, INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. WE ALSO NOTED THAT IN TH E VINIT CHOUHAN GROUP CASES, AN ORDER IS PASSED IN A GROUP IN I.T.A.NOS. 1061 TO 1181/IND/2016 DATED 23.11.2016, IN WHICH SIMILAR SET OF FACTS THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)( B) WAS SET ASIDE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID O RDER AND FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN ALL THESE APPEALS. 14. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COOR DINATED BENCH, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS FAIR AND JUSTIFIED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PUSHPA VERMA, M/S. REGENT BEERS & WINES LTD., PATEL EDUCATION & W ELFARE SOCIETY, ARUN KUMAR VERMA, MRS. VAISHALI SHIVHARE, RAM SWARO OP SHIVHARE & HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA AND ACCORDINGLY A LL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE APPEALS IN ITANO.361 TO 367/IND/2018, ITANO.345 TO 349/IND/2018, ITANO.353 TO ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 10 358/IND/2018, ITANO.368 TO 374/IND/2018, ITANO.375 TO 381/IND/2018, ITANO.389 TO 395/IND/2018 & ITANO.400/IND/2018 ARE ALLOWED AND REVENUE IS DIREC TED TO DELTED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN THESE CASES . NOW WE TAKE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, SUNIT MADHOK IN ITANO. 338 TO 344/IND/2018 IN THE CASE OF SUNIT MADHOK 15. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT MR. SUNIT MADHOK REMAINED NON- COMPLIANT TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND H E DID NOT APPEAR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO AN D THEREFORE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED EX-PARTE U/S 153A R.W.S. 14 4 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE COPIES OF THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH HIM ON THE DESIGNATED DATES FOR MAKING COMPLIANCE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. EXCEPT FOR A.Y. 2 016-17 ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO A.Y. 2015-16 HAVE B EEN COMPLETED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INC OME WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE DETAILS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE A SSESSMENT AND HE NEEDED NO OTHER EXPLANATION/ INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, FOR A.Y. 2016-17 AN ADDITI ON OF RS.16,20,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IMMUNITY FROM PAYING THE PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES IS PROVIDED U/S 273B OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLL OWS: ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 11 273B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PRO VISIONS OF [CLAUSE (B) SUB SECTION (1) OF ] [SECTION 271, SECT ION 271A, [ SECTION OF SECTION 271B [SECTION 271BA] [ SECTION 2 71BB] SECTION 271C [ SECTION 271CA,] SECTION 271D, SECTION 271E, [ SECTION 271F, [SECTION 271FA] [SECTION 271FAB] [SECTION 271 FB] [SECTION 271G] [SECTION 271GA] [SECTION 271H] [SECTION 271-I ] CLAUSE (C) OR CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 272A, S UB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 272AA] OR [SECTION 272B OR ] [SUB-SECTION ( 1) [OR SUB- SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 272BB OR ] [SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 272BBB OR ] CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 273, NO PENALTY S HALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CAS E MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE 16. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS ON PERU SAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDE S THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE, A S THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISI ONS IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE, WE FIND THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 TO A.Y. 2015-16 PENALTY SHOULD NO T HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON MR. SUNIT MADHOK AS HE WAS HAVING REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE I NFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED, NEEDED MORE TIME THAN THE TIME GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE THUS INCLINED TO H OLD THAT PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- EACH FOR U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR A .Y. 2010-11 TO A.Y. 2015-16 NEEDS TO BE DELETED AND ACCORDINGLY, S ET ASIDE THE FINDING OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE RE VENUES AUTHORITIES TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- FOR A.Y. 2010- 11 TO A.Y. 2015- ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 12 16 AND THUS ALLOW ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITANO. 338 TO 343/IND/2018. 17. AS REGARDS THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2016-17 LEVIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, MR. SUNIT MADHOK, W E ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- HAS RIGHTLY BE EN LEVIED U/S 271B OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTINUOUSLY DE FAULTED AND DID NOT TOOK PART IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR, IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, MR. SUNIT MADHOK FOR A.Y. 2016-17 AND THEREFORE, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITANO.344/IND/2018 IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE(S) IN IT ANO. ITANO.361 TO 367/IND/2018, ITANO.345 TO 349/IND/2018, ITANO.353 TO 358/IND/2018, ITANO.368 TO 374/IND/2018, ITANO.375 TO 381/IND/2018, ITANO.389 TO 395/IND/2018, ITANO.400/ IND/2018 AND ITANO.338 TO 343/IND/2018 ARE ALLOWED AND ASSE SSEE APPEAL ITANO.344/IND/2018 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24. 01.2019. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 24 TH JANUARY, 2019 PATEL/PS ITANO.338 OF 2018 AND OTHERS SUNIT MADHOK AND OTHERS 13 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE