INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SUMAN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act").

(2.) THE ld. D.R. has placed reliance upon the penalty order; whereas the ld. counsel for the assessee, beside placing reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A), has invited our attention that the assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act and made addition under different heads. Though an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum, but it was also decided ex -parte, as none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Consequently penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied. Even the penalty order was also passed ex -parte, against which an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), but none appeared before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), however, examined the reasonableness in the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and he was of the view that since the assessment was the best judgment assessment and the assessee was not allowed to furnish explanations with regard to the claim made by her, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereunder: -

(3.) THE ld. D.R. in rebuttal has submitted that the husband of the assessee has been participated in the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, validity of assessment framed under section 147 read with 144 of the Act cannot be questioned before the second appellate authority.