PRADEEP CHAUHAN,SONIPAT vs. ITO WARD - 3, SONIPAT

(PAN : ATUPK6133D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023 Date of Order : 14.03.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) which is bad in law being imposed penalty of Rs.10000 under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, without service of notice of initiation of penalty proceedings.

./2019 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) which is bad in law being passed impugned penalty order without recording mandatory satisfaction as per law and the impugned penalty order is illegal and void ab initio.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) which is bad in law being treated the assessee in default of non compliances of notices under section 142(1) whereas no such notice was received by the assessee.”

In the assessment, there was no cooperation by assessee. Several notices were issued, which remained uncomplied. Apart from addition of concealment of income for Rs.23,51,300/-, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1). Against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) amounting to Rs.10,000/-, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A).

“4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessee's submissions and case laws given by him and the penalty order and find that that the case was completed u/s 144 of the Act. No one attended during the assessment proceedings and even during the penalty proceedings, there was no compliance. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee only submitted that "In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not served upon the assessee in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable under the I.T. Act. Therefore, it is requested to quash the penalty order. The assessee has obtained order of penalty and demand notice from the office of the A.O on 01.02.2019 which is evident from copy ./2019 of demand notice which is filed before your good self along with Form 35 of appeal." From the penalty order, it is seen that the notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act dated 28.07.2017 was duly served on the assessee and he has not complied with the same. Also, no plausible reason for the same has been given during the penalty or appellate proceedings. It is also noted that during appeal proceeding notices have been served on the same address of the assessee of Vill- Atterna; he has complied with the notices, then how is it possible that notices were not received by him when they were duly served on the same address by A.O. The case laws cited by the assessee is not applicable as in the instant case, opportunity / show cause notice was given by A.O. before levying penalty. Thus, the assessee’s plea is rejected and penalty is hereby confirmed.”

Hence, on the facts and circumstances, the levy of penalty is correct.

Hence, we uphold the well-reasoned order of ld. CIT (A).