Shri Pradeep Aggarwal, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4598/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4689 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 153A; 27; 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4610/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S. WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO. 4 - R.S. APARTMENT, 3 - 4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI PAN AAACW5452H (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ( DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2017 ) ITA NO S . 4607 TO 4609/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 M/S. WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO. 4 - R.S. APARTMENT, 3 - 4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ( DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017 ) ITA NO S . 4598 TO 4604/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09 SH. PRADEEP AGGARWAL, H.NO. 472, BLOCK - C, SUSHANT LOK - 1, GURGAON. PAN ACTPA6906E (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ( DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2017 ) ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 2 ITA NO S. 4611 TO 4614/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09 M/S. VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD. FLAT NO. 4 - R.S. APARTMENT, 3 - 4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI PAN AAACG2074P (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017 ITA NO S. 4605 & 4606/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 SMT. VEENA GUPTA, H.NO. 92, SECTOR 5, GURGAON. PAN ALQPG8520J (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017 APPELLANT S BY SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADVOCATE & SH. PIYUSH KUMAR KAMAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. ANSHU PRAKASH, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH : BY MEANS OF ABOVE BATCHES OF APPEALS VARIOUS ASSESSEES, AS CAPTIONED IN THE TITLE ABOVE, HAVE CHALLENGED DIFFERENT COMMON ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - XXVI, NEW DELHI, SUSTAINING THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(L)(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 .08.2017 ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 3 2. SINCE IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE SAME ARISING OUT OF THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE BEING HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL NO. 4610/DEL./2015 FILED BY M/S. WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/ - U/S 271(L)(B) FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES , FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 30.11.2012 . 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALTY ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH THE MDLR GROUP OF COMPANIES AND W ERE ALSO DIRECTOR AND SHARE HOLDER IN SOME OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) WAS CONDUCTED AT VARIOUS PREMISES OF MDLR GROUP AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES IN JANUARY , 2008. IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, PROC EEDINGS U/S 153A WERE INITIATED IN CASE S OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT WAS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S 271(L)(B) FOR NON - ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 4 COMPLIANCE OF CERTAIN STATUTORY NOTICES BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE S WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED VERY DETAIL EXPLANATION, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS AND EXPLAINING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ON THE APPOINTED DA TE . THE AO, HOWEVER, DISREGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, IMPOSED PENALT Y U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPOSED SIMILAR PENALTIES IN OTHER GROUP CASES ON THE IDENTICA L FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ITAT IN ONE OF SUCH GROUP CASES, VIZ., JWALA PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. DCIT IN APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 4392 TO 4398/DEL./2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09, HAS CANCELLED THE SIMILAR PENALTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 25.08.2015 O N THE IDENTICAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILAR FACTS ATTENDING TO THE PRESENT CASES. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS , BEING SIMILAR, IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 5 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS SQUAR ELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE S GROUP CASE, JAWALA PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. DCIT(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH HAS DELETED THE PENALTIES ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS AS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE : THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IS THAT - > FIRSTLY, PENALTY NOTICE U/S 27 1 ( 1 )(B) ITSELF IS VA GUE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SPECIFY ABOUT ANY NOTICE OR DATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH THERE WAS FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THA T IS, IT DOES NOT MENTION ABOUT ANY NOTICE OR ANY DATE OF NON - C OMPLIANCE FOR WH ICH SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED; > SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ULTIMATELY MADE COMPLIANCES OF ALL THE NOTICES BY SUBMITTING IT'S REPLY ON THE DETAILS AND QUERY ASKED BY THE AO ON THE DAK COUNTER OR THROUGH REGISTERED/SPEED POST; > THIRDLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MORE THAN 303 GROUP ASSESSMENTS WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE SHORT SPAN OF FIVE MONTHS, HENCE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NOTICES IN ALL THE CASES AT THE APPOINTED DATES, BUT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH BELATEDLY ON S OME OCCASION DULY SUBMITTED ALL THE REPLIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. > LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN CONTROLLING PERSON, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTI RE MATTER WAS DETAINED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY SINCE AUGUST, 2012 AND WAS THERE FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS. ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 6 SINCE, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WAS ENTRUSTED WITH ALL THE DECISIONS AND WAS AWARE OF THE TAX MATTERS AND DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, THERE WAS DELAY IN COLLECTING I NFORMATION AND CONSEQUENTLY MAKING CERTAIN COMPLIANCES. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE REPLIES OR NON - COMPLIANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 5. HOWEVER, THE L D. ASSESSIN G OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.20,000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND OFFICES IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED OR DATE FIXED ON TWO OF THE OCCASIONS. 6. THE LEARNED C I T(APPEALS) TOO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID PENALTY AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDE R - '8.3. NONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION , NAMELY, SEARCH OPERATIONS ON THE MDLR GROUP IN JANUARY 2008, DETENTION OF SHRI GOPAL GOYAL, POOR TURN - OUT OF EMPLOYEES AT WORK PLACE, LARGE NUMBER OF PENDENCY OF AS SESSMENTS U/S 153A, AND PREPARATION OF VOLUMINOUS DETAILS, CONSTITUTE 'REASONABLE CAUSE' THAT PREVENTED THE APPELLANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED NOTICES OR FILING LETTERS TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT. SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE IN JANUARY 2008, FOLLOWING WH ICH 153A PROCEEDINGS WERE INEVITABLE. THE REVISION PETITIONS U/S 264 WERE MOVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE AO BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALSO, AS PER THE AO, THE REQUISITE DETAI LS WERE NOT BEING FILED. IN CONSIDERING THE MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(B), THAT RELATES TO NON - COMPLIANCE TO A STATUTORY NOTICE, ISSUED IN THE CASE OF A SPECIFIC ASSESSEE FOR A PARTICULAR AY REQUIRING ATTENDANCE ON THE STATED DATE, THE PENDENCY OF A LARG E 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 MATE R IALS, OBTAIN THE EXPLANATION OF EACH ASSESSEE, CARRY OUT NECES SARY VERIFICATIONS, AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO EACH OF THEM IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND THEREAFTER PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE TIME BARRING DATE. THUS, THE REASONS CITED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARE REJECTED. 8.4. FILING OF SEVERAL WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH IN TURN REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL PAPER WORK WAS A PERSONAL AND ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 7 PRIVATE DECISION OF THE ASSESSE ES OF THE GROUP AND CAN HARDLY CONSTITUTE A JUSTIFICATION FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES IN T HE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, IF THE 'CIRCUMSTANCES', CITED AS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR NON - C OMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, DID NOT COME IN THE WAY OF FILING THE WRIT PETITIONS, THESE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HINDERED THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE/A / R B EFORE THE AO ON 30.11.2012 AND 2 8.12.2012 . 8.5. AS PER SECTION 271( 1 )(B) READ WITH SECTION 273B, PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(B) IS VISITED UPON THE TAXPAYER WHO H AS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES MENTIONED THEREIN, FOR EA CH DEFAULT UNLESS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR S UCH FAILURE IS PROVEN. IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT VALID FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES. NO COMPELLING AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES HAS BEEN ADVANCED. 8.6 . WHILE EXAMINING THE MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) READ WITH SECTION 274, THE ONLY ASPECT THAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENTED THE APPELLANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. HERE, T HE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES ON 2 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS. THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM THE RIGORS OF PENALTY, HAD THE STATUTORY NOTICE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND ADJOURNMENT REQUESTED TIMELY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE STATUTORY NOTICES, AND THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE, BECAME LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B). 7. BEFORE US, THE L D. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271( 1 )(B), THE ASS E SSEE HAS FILED VERY - EXHAUSTIVE REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COPY OF WHICH ARE APPEARING AT PAGES 7 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO POINTE D OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. THE DETAIL OF REPLIES FILED ON VARIOUS CASE S INCLUDING THAT OF ASSESSEE SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST OR DAK HAS BEEN ILLUSTRA TED AT PAGES 14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER HOOK. APART FROM THAT, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT 'NIL' AND SUCH APPELLATE ORDERS HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. THE COPY OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDERS GIVING ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 8 EFFECT TO THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER COMPUTING THE INCOME AT 'NIL' INCOME RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09 HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 27 1 ( 1 )(B) UNDER THESE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE REPLIES. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD, DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C I T(APPEALS ) . 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HERE IN THIS CASE, FIRST OF ALL, ON PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY NOTICE AS APPEARING AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT NOWHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED ABOUT ANY PARTICULARS OF STATUTORY NOTICE/S FOR WHICH THERE WAS ANY DEFAULT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING THE EXPLANATI ON SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED AND CAN GIVE HIS SPECIFIC REBUTTAL. SUCH VAGUE NOTICE IS FATAL TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. FURTHER FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON 20.11.2012 AND 30.11.2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MENTIONS THAT ON 5.12.2012, SHRI VISHAL MEHTA, AR ALONG WITH OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND SUBMITTED THAT NON - COMPL IANCE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE WERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL K UMAR GOYAL WAS CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE AND THE WHOLE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE GROUP HEADS WERE ENGAGED IN ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS TO GET EARLY RELEASE OF S HRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THIS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE L D . ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF VARIOUS REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THAT MOST OF THE COMPLIANCES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH REPLIES/LETTERS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER BY FILING IN THE DAK OR THROUGH REGISTERED/SPEED POST. THIS IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY DETAILS OF REPLIES FILED IN VARIOUS GROUP CASES AS REFERRED TO BY LD. COUNSEL BEFORE US. OSTENSIBLY THERE MAY BE A CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLIANCE OR FILING OF REPLIES BEFORE AO AND NOT PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A PARTICULAR DATE, BUT COMPLIANCES IN FORM OF REPLIES DO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 9 ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED . WHAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SEEN WHILE LEVYING PENALTY FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, IS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR NON - APPEARANCE ON THE SPECIFIED DATE, THAT IS, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE OVERALL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN PLANKS FOR REASONABLE CAUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT, FIRSTLY, THE KEY PERSON/GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS ENTRUSTED WITH INCOME TAX MATTERS AND WAS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTIRE WORKING OF THE GROUP WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY I N SOME 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 ACCENTUATING THE PROBLEMS; SECONDLY, MORE THAN 300 GROUP ASS ESSMENTS W ERE INITIATED IN THE WAKE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY GO ING ON, THEREFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO COMPLY TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ON SHORT DATES; LASTLY, IT HAS BEEN STRONGLY PLEADED BEFORE US, THAT THE COMPLIANCES HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH RE PLIES FILED THROUGH DAK OR REGISTERED POST THOUGH BELATEDLY. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO OR CIT (APPEALS). ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER ANY PRUDENCE DO CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTIO N 273B AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN NOTICES ON A PARTICULAR DATE WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT ALSO BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 10. APART FROM THAT, ONE IMPORTANT FACT BROUGHT ON RECORD IS THAT, THE DEMAND IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 'NIL', AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIVE NON - COMPLIANCE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AN ALLEGED BREACH OR NON - COMPLIANCE IS MERE TECHNICAL AND VENIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR SUCH VENIAL BREACH. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/ - U/S 271( 1 )(B) FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS UNSUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABO VE AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 4598 TO 4614/DEL./2015 10 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID CASE, AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE ATTENDING FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, BEING IDENTICAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 9 . SIN CE SIMILAR FACTS AR E PERMEATING THROUGH IN ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES , AS NOTED ABOVE, OUR FINDINGS REACHED IN ITA NO. 4610/DEL./2015 IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER , SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN ALL OTHER APPEALS BEFORE US . ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS ALSO DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.08.2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31.08.2017 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI