ABHI IMPEX PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4619/DEL/2019Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 March 2023AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the assessee's failure to justify the delay and their non-compliance with statutory notices. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 66-day delay without reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without reasonable cause, and whether the penalty for non-compliance with notices was rightly upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
2.

As per the order passed under Section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- in exercise of power under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act concerning Assessment Year 2010-11 on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) one after the other and constraining the Assessing Officer to pass best judgment order under Section 144 of the Act. A penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed for non-compliance of notices issued in the course of the assessment proceedings.

3.

Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) refused to entertain the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before him without showing any reasonable cause. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision in the case of Gopal Films vs. CIT (1999) 105 ITR 364 (Kar) and plethora of other judgments to hold that the delay cannot be condoned without showing circumstances for delay.

4.

Further aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.

5.

When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. It is seen from the record that the matter was placed for hearing on three occasions prior to this date of hearing. Consequently, we are constraint to proceed with the matter ex-parte.

6.

In the absence of any explanation to justify the grounds of appeal, we are in no position to interfere with the action of the CIT(A). While the CIT(A) has justified its action for refusing to exercise its discretion in favour of the assessee seeking condonation of delay, the assessee has failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Coupled with this, the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance of statutory notices in the assessment proceedings. Thus, it appears that the assessee is nonchalant in compliance of the statutory notices and timeline provided in the Act. Hence, we see no reason to disturb the order of the CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex-parte. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 20.03.2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →