M/s Shivnandan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4556/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4706 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RC DANDEY
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 153A; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4556/DEL/2015 AY: 20 07-08 ITA NO. 4557/DEL/2015 AY: 20 08-09 SHIVANANDAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD., VS DCIT, FLAT NO. 4-RR., APARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, 3-4, MANGLAPURI, NEW DELHI. MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAKCS1698B) ITA NO. 4558/DEL/2015 AY: 20 05-06 ITA NO. 4560/DEL/2015 AY: 20 07-08 ITA NO. 4561/DEL/2015 AY: 20 08-09 NAGESHWAR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., VS DCIT, FLAT NO. 4-RR., APARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, 3-4, MANGLAPURI, NEW DELHI. MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAKCS1698B) ITA NO. 4563/DEL/2015 AY: 20 07-08 ITA NO. 4564/DEL/2015 AY: 20 08-09 SHIVGANESH BUILDCON PVT. LTD., VS DCIT, 102, 1 ST FLOOR, ANTRIKSH BHAWAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 , K.G. MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAJCS5814Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. SHRI PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.C. DANDEY, SR. DR ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 DATE OF HEARING: 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.08.2017 O R D E R - P E R B E N C H: THESE ARE A BATCH OF SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THREE A SSESSEES CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED UND ER SECTION 271 (1) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R CALLED THE ACT). SINCE THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED ARE SIMILAR IN ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROU GH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THESE APPEALS INVOLVE THREE ASSESSEES VIZ. M/S S HIVAGANESH BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S SHIVNANDAN BUILDCON ( P) LTD. AND M/S NAGESHWAR BUILDER PRIVATE LIMITED. M/S SHIVANAN DAN BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN RE AL ESTATE, LAND TRADING AND DEVELOPMENT M/S SHIVAGNESH BUILDCO N PRIVATE LIMITED IS ALSO A COMPANY ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE LA ND TRADING AND DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS M/S NAGESHWAR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION A ND SALE OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES. ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 2.1 A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF ALL T HE THREE COMPANIES ON 31/01/2008 AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 1 44 OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENT TO ORDERS U/S 264 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE PAS SED IN CASE OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES. 2.2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT W ERE ALSO INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSES FOR THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSES TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE AO HAS OBSERVED IN THE PENALTY ORDERS THAT THE ASSE SSEE/S HAD FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS AS AND WHEN IT WAS REQUIRED THROUGH DIFFERENT NOTICES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEES IN THE DAK AND THAT THE ASSESSEE/S PREFERRED NOT TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO THE PENALTY NOTICES, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE/S BEFORE THE AO THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE WAS BECAUSE O F REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE/S AND ARISING OU T OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL REASONS. THE ASSESSEE/S ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE/S TO HAVE EVADED THE COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES. THE ASSESSEE/S HAD ALSO PREFERRED WRIT/S PETITION/S AGAINST THE P ROCEEDINGS ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 TAKEN BY THE AO WHEREIN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T VIDE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/03/2013 HAD GIVEN A DIRECTIO N WITH REFERENCE TO NON-INITIATION OF ANY COURSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE/S TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDING LY, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE VERDICT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH OF DECEMBER 2013 DECIDED THE WRIT/S OF THE ASSESSEE/S IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMEN T AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WERE TAKEN AS REVIVED WHICH HAD BEEN KEPT I N ABEYANCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT. THEREAFTER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE/S THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE/S FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTIES. ACCO RDINGLY, THE AO IMPOSED THE PENALTIES AS UNDER SNO ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR PENALTY AMOUNT (RS.) 1 SHIVGANESH BUILDCON (P) LTD 2007 - 08 20,000/ - 2 SHIVGANESH BUILDCON (P) LTD 2008 - 09 20,000/ - 3 SHIVANANDAN BUILDCON (P) LTD 2007 - 08 20,000/ - ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 4 SHIVANANDAN BUILDCON (P) LTD 2008 - 09 20,000/ - 5 NAGESHWAR BUILDER (P) LTD 2005 - 06 20,000/ - 6 NAGESHWAR BUILDER (P) LTD 2007 - 08 20,000/ - 7 NAGESHWAR BUILDER (P) LTD 2008 - 09 20,000/ - 2.3 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE P ENALTY. THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED AN IDENTICAL ORDER IN ALL THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED AS UNDER 8.3. NONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN SUB MISSION, NAMELY, SEARCH OPERATIONS ON THE MDLR GROUP IN JANU ARY 2008, DETENTION OF SHRI GOPAL GOYAL, POOR TURN-OUT OF EMPLOYEES AT WORK PLACE, LARGE NUMBER OF PENDENCY O F ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A, AND PREPARATION OF VOLUMINOUS DETAILS, CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENT ED THE APPELLANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED NO TICES OR FILING LETTERS TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT. SEARCH HAD TAKE N PLACE IN JANUARY 2008, FOLLOWING WHICH 153A PROCEEDINGS WERE INEVITABLE. THE REVISION PETITIONS U/S 264 WERE MOV ED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS WERE REQUI RED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE AO BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALSO, AS PER THE AO, THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE NOT BEING FILED. IN CONSIDERING THE MATTER OF PENALTY U /S 271(1)(B), THAT RELATES TO NON-COMPLIANCE TO A STATUTORY NOTIC E, ISSUED IN THE CASE OF A SPECIFIC ASSESSEE FOR A PARTICULAR AY REQUIRING ATTENDANCE ON THE STATED DATE, THE PENDENCY OF A LA RGE NUMBER OF OTHER CASES OF THE GROUP IS AN IRRELEVANT FACT. MOREOVER, THE BURDEN OF PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENTS WAS LARGER FOR THE AO, WHO WAS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE EACH CASE, EXAMINE THE SEIZED MATERIALS, OBTAIN THE EXPLANATION OF EAC H ASSESSEE, CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, AFFORD ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 OPPORTUNITY TO EACH OF THEM IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIP LE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND THEREAFTER PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER B EFORE THE TIME BARRING DATE. THUS, THE REASONS CITED IN THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION ARE REJECTED. 8.4. FILING OF SEVERAL WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH IN TURN REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL PAPERWORK , WAS A PERSONAL AND PRIVATE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEES OF T HE GROUP AND CAN HARDLY CONSTITUTE A JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-C OMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, IF THE 'CIRCUMSTANCES', CITED AS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FO R NON- COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, DID NOT COME IN TH E WAY OF FILING THE WRIT PETITIONS, THESE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HINDERED THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE/AR BEFORE THE AO ON 30.11.2012 AND 28.12.2012. 8.5. AS PER SECTION 271(1)(B) READ WITH SECTION 273 B, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) IS VISITED UPON THE TAXPAYER WHO HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES MENTIONED THEREIN , FOR EACH DEFAULT UNLESS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH FAILURE IS PROVEN. IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT VALID FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STA TUTORY NOTICES. NO COMPELLING AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAI LURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES HAS BEEN ADVANCED . 8.6. WHILE EXAMINING THE MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271( L)(B) READ WITH SECTION 274, THE ONLY ASPECT THAT HAS TO BE EX AMINED IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENT ED THE APPELLANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. HERE, THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES ON 2 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS SPREAD OVER A PERI OD OF 3 MONTHS. THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM THE R IGOURS OF PENALTY, HAD THE STATUTORY NOTICE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND ADJOURNMENT REQUESTED TIMELY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLAN T CHOSE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE STATUTORY NOTICES, AND THE REFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE, BECAME LIABLE FOR PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(B). ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 2.4 NOW THE ASSESSEE/S HAVE APPROACHED THE ITAT C HALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART THE ASSESSEE/S ON THE SAID DATE WERE DUE TO THE FACT TH AT GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND THE WH OLE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE GROUP HEADS WERE ENGAGED IN ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS TO GET AN EARLY RELEASE OF SHRI GOPAL K UMAR GOYAL WHO WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEIN G A REASONABLE CAUSE, NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSE D. 4. THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM A PERUSAL OF SECTION 2 73B, WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 271, NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSES SEE AS THE ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAI D PROVISION, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. SO IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED, I F THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE OF NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE SERVE D ON THEM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OF THE ACT. 5.1 THE MEANING OF REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN STATE D IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD. VS. CIT AND ORS. (2002) REPORTED IN 253 ITR 745 (DELHI). PARA 5 & 6 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- REASONABLE CAUSE, AS APPLIED TO HUMAN ACTION IS TH AT WHICH WOULD CONSTRAIN A PERSON OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AN D ORDINARY PRUDENCE. THE EXPRESSION 'REASONABLE' IS N OT SUSCEPTIBLE OF A CLEAR AND PRECISE DEFINITION; FOR AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE A SPECIFIC MEANING TO THE WORD NOT SPACE. IT C AN BE DESCRIBED AS RATIONAL ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF REASON AND IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR IMMODERATE. THE WORD 'REASONABL E' HAS IN LAW THE PRIMA FACIE MEANING OF REASONABLE WITH REGA RD TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH THE ACTOR, CALLED ON T O ACT REASONABLY, KNOWS OR OUGHT TO KNOW (SEE IN RE, A SO LICITOR (1945) KB 368 (CA).REASONABLE CAUSE CAN BE REASONAB LY SAID TO BE A CAUSE WHICH PREVENTS A MAN OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND ORDINARY PRODUCE, ACTING UNDER NOR MAL ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WA NT OF BONA FIDES.' 5.2 IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION O F INDIA REPORTED IN 252 ITR 471 (DELHI), DELHI, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD:- 'SECTION 273B STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SEVERAL PROVISIONS ENUMERATED THEREIN INCLUDING SECTION 271 C, NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON OR THE ASS ESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISIONS, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. A CLAUSE BEGINNING WITH 'NOTWITHS TANDING ANYTHING' IS SOMETIMES APPENDED TO A SECTION IN THE BEGINNING WITH A VIEW TO GIVE THE ENACTING PART OF THE SECTION IN CASE OF CONFLICT AN OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE P ROVISION OF ACT MENTIONED IN THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE (SEE ORIENT PA PER AND INDUSTRIES LTD V STATE OF ORISSA, AIR 1991 SC 672) A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE MAY BE USED AS A LEGISLATIVE DEVICE , TO MODIFY THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISION OF LAW MENTIONED IN THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE, OR TO OVERRIDE IT IN SPECIFIED CIR CUMSTANCES (SEE T R THANDUR V UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1996 SC 1643 ) THE TRUE EFFECT OF THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE IS THAT IN S PITE OF THE PROVISION OR ACT MENTIONED IN THE NON OBSTANTE CLAU SE, THE ENACTMENT FOLLOWING IT WILL HAVE ITS FULL OPERATION OR THAT THE PROVISIONS EMBRACED IN THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WILL NOT BE AN IMPEDIMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE ENACTMENT (SEE SMT ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 PARAYANKANDIYAL ERAVATH KANAPRAVAN KALLIANI AMMA V K DEVI, AIR 1996 SC 1963) THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO BRIN G IN APPLICATION OF SECTION 271C IN THE BACKDROP OF SECT ION 273B, ABSENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE, EXISTENCE OF WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS THE SINE QUA NON. L EVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C IS NOT AUTOMATIC. BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY, THE CONCERNED OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE CONCERN ED PROVISION THE SAME WAS WITHOUT A REASONABLE CAUSE THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED REASO NABLE CAUSE WHICH GAVE THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE REFERRE D TO IN THE CONCERNED PROVISION. THEREAFTER THE OFFICER DEALING WITH THE MATTER HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PERSON, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS REGA RDS THE REASON FOR FAILURE, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REASONABLE CA USE. 'REASONABLE CAUSE' AS APPLIED TO HUMAN ACTION IS TH AT WHICH WOULD CONSTRAIN A PERSON OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AN D ORDINARY PRUDENCE. IT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS PROBABLE CAUSE. IT MEANS AN HONEST BELIEF FOUNDED UPON REASONABLE GROU NDS, OF THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH AS SUMING THEM TO BE TRUE, WOULD REASONABLY LEAD ANY ORDINARI LY PRUDENT AND CAUTIOUS MAN, PLACED IN THE POSITION OF THE PERSON CONCERNED, TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E SAME WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THE CAUSE SHOWN HAS TO B E CONSIDERED AND ONLY IF IT IS FOUND TO BE FRIVOLOUS, WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR FOUNDATION, THE PRESCRIBED CONSEQUENCE S FOLLOW. THE ABOVE BEING THE POSITION, THE COMMISSIONER'S NO N- CONSIDERATION OF THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE VITIATED THE ORDER. O N THAT SCORE, WE FIND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE NON- MAINTAINABLE.' 5.3 IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US, THE MAIN PLEA FOR RE ASONABLE CAUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE/S HAS BEEN THAT THE K EY PERSON/GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS E NTRUSTED WITH THE INCOME TAX MATTERS AND WAS LOOKING AFTER T HE ENTIRE WORKING OF THE GROUP WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN SOM E CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE ENTIRE GROUP AND FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ENGAGED IN ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR HIS EARLY RELEASE AND VARIOUS EMPLOYEES WERE LEAVING THE GROUP FURTHER AC CENTUATING THE PROBLEMS. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES, UNDER ANY PRUDENCE, DO CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE FALLI NG WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 273B AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERT AIN NOTICES ON A PARTICULAR DATE WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AS HI GHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSEE/S NOT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEE DINGS AND HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S. ITA 4556, 4557/D/15, 4558,4560, 4561, 4563, 4564/D/ 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2005-06 5.4 SINCE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS IN THE CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR ALL THE YEARS APPEALED BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSES AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY L EVIED U/S 271(1)(B) ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. IN THE FINAL RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DT. 31 ST AUGUST 2017 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR