Shri Rajeev Kumar Parashar, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4697/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4801 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KR YADAV
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 153A; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT, & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4697/DEL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) RAJEEV KUMAR PARASHAR, A-175, SECOND FLOOR, BLOSSOMS-1, MAYFEILD GARDENS, GURGAON. (PAN-AMNPP6084A) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 14, NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY SHRI LALIT MOHAN REVENUE BY SHRI ARUN KR. YADAV ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 07/05/2015 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NE W DELHI, UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS . 20,000/-, IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B), OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) . 2. DURING HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SHRI LALIT MOHAN, CONTENDED THAT FOR OTHER ASSESSME NT YEARS, DATE OF HEARING 01/08/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/08/2018 ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 2 ON IDENTICAL FACTS/ISSUES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22/01/2018 (ITA NO.4693 TO 46 96 & 4698/DEL/2015). THE LD. DR, SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV T HOUGH DEFENDED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BUT DID NOT CONT ROVERT THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 20 05-06 AND 2007-08, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN HAND . 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION F ROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22/01/2018 FO R READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- THE ABOVE BATCHES OF APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF DI FFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE OUT OF RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN AL L THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE SUSTENAN CE OF PENALTIES IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEES TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,000/- EACH U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES AS MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE PENALTY ORDERS AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 2. REFERRING TO THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF ITAT, DELHI B ENCHES IN OTHER CASES OF THE ASSESSEES GROUP OF CONCERNS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTIES IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES HAVE BEEN DELETED AND THEREFORE, THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTIES IN THE INSTANT CASES IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE DECIS IONS OF COORDINATE BENCHES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE L IGHT OF RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF PENALTY ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 3 U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ALREADY STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE IN OTHER GROUP CAS ES OF ASSESSEES IN M/S. WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. DC IT & OTHERS (ITA NO. 4610/DEL./2015 & OTHERS) VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND COMPLETENESS , THE FACTS NARRATED AND FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISI ON ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PE NALTY OF RS. 20,000/- U/S 271(L)(B) FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTO RY NOTICES, FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 30.11.2012. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALTY A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH THE MDLR GROUP OF COMPANIES AND WERE ALSO DIRECTOR AND SHARE HOLDER IN SOME OF THE GROUP CO MPANIES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) WAS CONDUCTED A T VARIOUS PREMISES OF MDLR GROUP AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES IN JANUARY, 2008. IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OP ERATION, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WERE INITIATED IN CASES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT WAS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR PAS SED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A. DURING THE COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIAT ED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF CER TAIN STATUTORY NOTICES BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, SHOW CAUSE N OTICES WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASS ESSEE FILED VERY DETAIL EXPLANATION, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF INITI ATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND EXPLAINING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. THE AO, HOWEVER, DISREGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, IMPOSED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE PENA LTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPOSED S IMILAR PENALTIES IN OTHER GROUP CASES ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ITAT IN ONE OF SUCH GROUP CASES , VIZ., JWALA PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. DCIT IN APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 439 2 TO 4398/DEL./2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008 -09, HAS CANCELLED THE SIMILAR PENALTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 25. 08.2015 ON THE IDENTICAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILAR FA CTS ATTENDING TO THE PRESENT CASES. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE I SSUE INVOLVED IN ALL NTHESE APPEALS, BEING SIMILAR, IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF CO-ORDINA TE BENCH. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 4 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LI GHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVE D IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES GROUP CASE, JAWALA PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. DCIT(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE ITAT, DE LHI BENCH HAS DELETED THE PENALTIES ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SIM ILAR 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 271(1)(B) ITSELF IS V AGUE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SPECIFY ABOUT ANY NOTICE OR DATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH THERE WAS FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT IS, IT DO ES NOT MENTION ABOUT ANY NOTICE OR ANY DATE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED; > SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ULTIMATELY MADE COMPLI ANCES 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 P OST; > THIRDLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MORE THAN 303 GROU P ASSESSMENTS WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE SHORT SPAN OF FIVE MONTHS , HENCE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NOTICES IN AL L THE CASES AT THE APPOINTED DATES, BUT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH BELATEDLY ON SOME 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 CONTROLLIN G PERSON, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTIRE MATTER WAS DETAINED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY SINCE AUGUST, 2012 AND WAS THERE F OR MORE THAN 2 YEARS. SINCE, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WAS ENTRUSTED WITH ALL THE DECISIONS AND WAS AWARE OF THE TAX MATTERS AND DOCU MENTS; THEREFORE, THERE WAS DELAY IN COLLECTING INFORMATIO N AND CONSEQUENTLY MAKING CERTAIN COMPLIANCES. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED TH AT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE REPLIE S OR NON- COMPLIANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PE NALTY OF RS.20,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND OFFICES IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED OR DATE FIXE D ON TWO OF THE OCCASIONS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TOO HAS CONFIRMED THE S AID PENALTY AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER- '8.3. NONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSION, NAMELY, SEARCH OPERATIONS ON THE MDLR GROUP IN JANUARY 2008 , DETENTION OF SHRI GOPAL GOYAL, POOR TURN-OUT OF EMPLOYEES AT WOR K PLACE, LARGE NUMBER OF PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A, AND PRE PARATION OF VOLUMINOUS DETAILS, CONSTITUTE 'REASONABLE CAUSE' T HAT PREVENTED THE APPELLANT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED NO TICES OR FILING LETTERS TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT. SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE IN JANUARY 2008, FOLLOWING WHICH 153A PROCEEDINGS WERE INEVITA BLE. THE ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 5 REVISION PETITIONS U/S 264 WERE MOVED BY THE APPELL ANT AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETE D BY THE AO BEFORE THE LIMITATION DATE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALS O, AS PER THE AO, THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE NOT BEING FILED. IN CONSIDER ING THE MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B), THAT RELATES TO NONCOMPLIANC E TO A STATUTORY NOTICE, ISSUED IN THE CASE OF A SPECIFIC ASSESSEE F OR A PARTICULAR AY REQUIRING ATTENDANCE ON THE STATED DATE, THE PENDEN CY OF A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER CASES OF THE GROUP IS AN IRRELEVANT FACT. MOREOVER, THE BURDEN OF PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENTS WAS LARGER FO R THE AO, WHO WAS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE EACH CASE, EXAMINE THE SEIZ ED MATERIALS, OBTAIN THE EXPLANATION OF EACH ASSESSEE, CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO EACH OF THEM I N TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND THEREAFTER PASS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE TIME BARRING DATE. THUS, THE REASO NS CITED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARE REJECTED. 8.4. FILING OF SEVERAL WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH IN TURN REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL PAPER WORK WAS A PERSONAL AND PRIVATE DECISION OF THE ASSESSEES OF THE GROUP AND CAN HARDLY CONSTITUTE A JUSTIFICATION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, IF THE 'CIRCUM STANCES', CITED AS 'REASONABLE CAUSE' FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 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 BEFO RE THE AO ON 30.11.2012 AND 28.12.2012. 8.5. AS PER SECTION 271(1)(B) READ WITH SECTION 273 B, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) IS VISITED UPON THE TAXPAYER WHO HAS FAIL ED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES MENTIONED THEREIN, FOR EACH DEFAULT UNL ESS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH FAILURE IS PROVEN. IN THE CASE AT HA ND, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT VALID F OR NON- COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES. NO COMPELLING AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTI CES 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 EXAMINE D IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE THAT PREVENTED THE A PPELLANT 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 PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS. THE APP ELLANT COULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM THE RIGORS OF PENALTY, HAD THE ST ATUTORY NOTICE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND ADJOURNMENT REQUESTED TIMELY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE STATUT ORY NOTICES, AND THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE, BEC AME LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B). 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN RES PONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VERY-EXHAUSTIVE REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COPY OF WHI CH ARE APPEARING AT PAGES 7 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS SU BMISSIONS WERE FILED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. THE DETAIL OF REPLIES FILED ON VARIOUS CASES INCLUDING THAT OF ASSESSEE S ENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST OR DAK HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED AT PAGE S 14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER HOOK. APART FROM THAT, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE FIRST APPEAL THE ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 6 RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT 'NIL' AND SUCH APPELLATE ORDERS HA VE ATTAINED FINALITY. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER COMPUTING THE INCOME AT 'NIL' INCOM E RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEV IED U/S 271(1)(B) UNDER THESE FACTS 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 UP ON THE OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HERE IN THIS CASE, FIRST OF ALL, ON PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY NOTICE AS APPEARI NG AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT NOWHERE THE ASSESSI NG 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 SPECIF IC AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING THE EX PLANATION SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY IS BEING I NITIATED AND CAN GIVE HIS SPECIFIC REBUTTAL. SUCH VAGUE NOTICE IS FA TAL TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. FURTHER FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATT END THE PROCEEDINGS ON 20.11.2012 AND 30.11.2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MENTIONS THAT ON 5.12.2012, SHRI VISHAL MEHTA, AR A LONG WITH OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND SUBMITTE D THAT NON - COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE WERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WA S CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE AND THE WHOLE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE GRO UP HEADS WERE ENGAGED IN ONGOING COURT PROCEEDINGS TO GET EARLY R ELEASE OF SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THIS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 READ WI TH SECTION 153A. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF VARIOUS REPLIES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THAT MOST OF THE COMPLIANCES HAVE BEEN MADE TH ROUGH REPLIES/LETTERS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHE R BY FILING IN THE DAK OR THROUGH REGISTERED/SPEED POST. THIS IS FURTHER C ORROBORATED BY DETAILS OF REPLIES FILED IN VARIOUS GROUP CASES AS REFERRED TO BY LD. COUNSEL BEFORE US. OSTENSIBLY THERE MAY BE A CASE O F DELAY IN COMPLIANCE OR FILING OF REPLIES BEFORE AO AND NOT P ERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A PARTICU LAR DATE, BUT COMPLIANCES IN FORM OF REPLIES DO HAVE BEEN FILED I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL THE NECESSARY DETAIL S] REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. WHAT A RE REQUIRED TO BE SEEN WHILE LEVYING PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES, IS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR NON-APP EARANCE ON THE SPECIFIED DATE, THAT IS, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REAS ONABLE CAUSE AND THE OVERALL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN PLANK S FOR REASONABLE CAUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT, FIRSTL Y, THE KEY PERSON/GROUP HEAD, SHRI GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL WHO WAS E NTRUSTED WITH INCOME TAX MATTERS AND WAS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTIRE WORKING OF THE GROUP WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN SOME CRIMINAL PROC EEDINGS AND THE ENTIRE GROUP AND FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ENGAGED IN ONG OING COURT ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 7 PROCEEDINGS FOR HIS EARLY RELEASE AND VARIOUS EMPLO YEES WERE LEAVING THE GROUP FURTHER ACCENTUATING THE PROBLEMS ; SECONDLY, MORE THAN 300 GROUP ASSESSMENTS WERE INITIATED IN THE WA KE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY GOING ON, THE REFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO COMPLY TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES ON SHORT DATES; LASTLY, IT HAS BEEN STRONGLY PLEADED BEFORE US, THAT THE COMPLIANC ES HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH REPLIES FILED THROUGH DAK OR REGISTERE D POST THOUGH BELATEDLY. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED B Y THE AO OR CIT (APPEALS). ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER ANY PRUDENCE DO CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE FALLING WITHIN THE SCOP E AND AMBIT OF SECTION 273B AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN NOTICES ON A PARTICU LAR DATE WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT ALSO BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED IN S UCH 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 THER E HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIVE NON-COMPLIANCE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AN ALLEGED BREACH OR NON-CO MPLIANCE 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 Y EARS IS UNSUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE AND IS DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINA TE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID CASE, AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE ATTENDI NG FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES I N 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. SINCE SIMILAR FACTS ARE PERMEATING THROUGH IN AL L THE REMAINING APPEALS OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES, AS NOTED AB OVE, OUR FINDINGS REACHED IN ITA NO. 4610/DEL./2015 IN EARLI ER PART OF THIS ORDER, SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN ALL OTHER APPEALS BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS A LSO DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENC HES IN FOLLOWING GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE: (I) M/S. KING BUILDCON (P) LTD. (A.YRS. 2005-06 TO 2008-09- ORDER DATED 13.11.2017) (II) M/S. KAIRAV NON-WOVEN (P) LTD.(A.YRS. 2006-07 TO 2008-09 ORDER DATED 31.08.2017) ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 8 (III) GOBIND KUMAR GOYAL (A.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 ORDER DATED 30.08.2017) 4. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASES, WE FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE DE CISIONS REACHED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE AFORESAID DEC ISIONS. W, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECI SIONS, FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED PENAL TIES IMPOSED IN THE INSTANT CASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPU GNED ORDERS DESERVE TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTIES SU STAINED IN THE INSTANT CASES DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED. 2.2. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2002-03 TO 2005-06 AND 2007-08, ON IDENTICAL FACTS/ISSUE, DELIBERATED UPON AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS FROM BOTH SIDES INCLUDING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KING BUILDCON PVT. LTD. (ORDER DATED 13/11/2017), M/S KAIRAV NON-WOVEN (P) LTD. OR DER DATED 31/07/2017 AND GOVIND KUMAR GOYAL, ORDER DATE D 30/07/2017AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES. IDENTICAL VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF GOPLA GAUBA VS DCIT (ITA N O.4263 TO 4268/DEL/2015) AND GEE GEE BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. (ITA NOS.4269 TO 4272/DEL/2015), ORDER DATED 13/12/2017. THUS, CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED/DELIBERATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL THA T TOO IN ITA NO. 469 7 /DEL/2015 RAJEEV KUMAR PARASAR 9 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DELETE THE PENALTY, RESULTING INTO ALLOWING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENT OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. D R ON 01/08/2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (JOGINDER S INGH) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMB ER DELHI DATED : 01/08/2018 F{X~{T? PRIVATE SECRETARY COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT, 4. CIT(A)- 5. DR, ITAT, 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, DELHI