I.T.A. NOS.526 TO 532/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 TO 15-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.526 TO 532/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-2010 TO 15-16 SHRI VISHWA NATH GUPTA, 7/71A, TILAK NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAQPG 8219 F VS. DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)IV, KANPUR, DATED 14/05 /2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2015-16. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED AND THE FACTS INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, WE HAVE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THESE APPEALS BY A COMMON ORDER. IN THESE APPEALS THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS SEVEN GROUNDS HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN EACH CASE WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD MADE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 12/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 /03/2019 I.T.A. NOS.526 TO 532/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 TO 15-16 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 17/10/2016 AN D LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. LEARNED A. R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12/07/2017 HAD BEEN COMPLETE D IN REGULAR COURSE U/S 143(3), WITHOUT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 144 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, NO PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271(1)(B) SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED BY IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/-. 3. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THE PENALTY WAS I MPOSED FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SECOND NOTICE DATED 17/10/2 016 ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HA VE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN EACH CASE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT FINALLY THE ASSESSEE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. TH IS FACT HAS BEEN NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 7 THAT COMPL IANCE OF NOTICE ON SUBSEQUENT DATE CANNOT BE TREATED AS REASONABLE CAU SE. IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE DID APPEAR ON SUBSEQUENT DATES. WE FIND T HAT THE NON COMPLIANCE OF SECOND NOTICE DATED 17/10/2016 IS MERELY A TECHN ICAL BREACH OF LAW WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR ANY PUNISHMENT BY WAY OF LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF I.T.A. NOS.526 TO 532/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 TO 15-16 3 THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE PENA LTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN ALL THE APPEALS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S TAND ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/03/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:15/03/2019 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR