CONSOLIDATED ORDER

PER BENCH

(A) In all these cases, the assessees have filed appeals against orders dated 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2016 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur, (“Ld. CIT(A)”, in short) pertaining to different Assessment Years. In the aforesaid orders, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeals in limine for non- prosecution of the appeals by the respective assessees. For the sake of convenience these appeals are hereby disposed off through this Consolidated Order. The grounds of all these appeals are as under:

ITA No. -2531/Del/2016

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine for non attendance by the appellant.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur had no power to dismiss the appeal is limine for non attendance by the appellant in the facts of circumstances of the case.

3. Various observations made by the Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur in the appellate order either incorrect or are legally untenable.

4. That Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur was duty bound to adjudicate the following grounds as specifically raised before him:-

a. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 71,990/- u/s 271B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and therefore, penalty order deserves to be annulled.

b. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 71,990/- u/s 271B of the Act and failed to observe that assessee was not required to maintain books of account and in case of non maintenance of books of accounts assessee cannot be penalized for failure to get accounts audited and therefore penalty deserves to be cancelled.

c. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts on the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 71,990/- u/s 271B of the Act by wrongly holding that entries recorded in the bank accounts also partake the character of books of accounts and therefore penalty order deserves to be cancelled.

5. That it was not a fit case for levy of penalty of Rs. 71,990/- under section 271B which deserves to be deleted.

6. That the Appellant reserves his right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal.”

ITA No. -2533/Del/2016

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine for non attendance by the appellant.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur had no power to dismiss the appeal is limine for non attendance by the appellant in the facts of circumstances of the case.

3. Various observations made by the Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur in the appellate order either incorrect or are legally untenable.

4. That Ld. CIT(A)-IV Kanpur was duty bound to adjudicate the following grounds as specifically raised before him:-

a. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,36,680/- u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, penalty order deserves to be annulled.

b. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,36,680/- u/s 271B of the Act and failed to observe that assessee was not required to maintain books of account and in case of non maintenance of books of accounts assessee cannot be penalized for failure to get accounts audited and therefore penalty deserves to be cancelled.

c. That Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts on the case by imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,36,680/- u/s 271B of the Act by wrongly holding that entries recorded in the bank accounts also partake the character of books of accounts and therefore penalty order deserves to be cancelled.

d. That without prejudice to above, it is well settled law that penalty law is prospective law and in the year under appeal amount of maximum penalty imposable was Rs. 1 Lac and amendment in section 271B of the Act revising the penalty amount from Rs. 1 Lac to Rs. 1.50 Lac came into effect from A.Y. 2011-12, hence