Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(CIT(A)-1,Udaipur passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax (Act), 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS WRONGLY IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(b) FOR Rs 10000/-
Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 2 -
2. WITHOUT ANY DACIC THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 NO NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE Assessee BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER.
3. THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATE OF DEFOULT FOR NON COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MENTAIONED FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED.
THAT ASSRESERVE THE RIGHT OF ADDITTION & ALTERATION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business and has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2009-10. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has received the information that the Assessee has sold property at RIICO industrial Area, IID Centre, kaladwad, Udaipur and the assessed value is Rs.40,17,450/- as per the stamp duty valuation.The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the asseseement and has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire. Subsequently, the A.O has issued notices calling for Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 3 - the details of sale consideration, cost of acquisition but there was no compliance. Since the said information was not furnished in spite of issue of notices , the AO has invoked the best judgment provisions U/sec144 of the Act and relied on the information available and computed the Long Term Capital Gains and assessed the total income of Rs.40,17,450/- and passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 29.01.2015.
Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliances of notices in the assesseement proceedings. The A.O has dealt on the facts, information of the scrutiny assessment and in spite of issuing the penalty notices on various dates 29.01.2015, 25.05.2015 & 15.07.2015 none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor the explanations were filed. Finally the AO has levied a penalty of Rs.10,000/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 4 -
4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, submissions and the findings the AO. The CIT(A) dealt on the facts, the A.O report on the notices issued and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not complied with the statutory notices and the A.O has invoked the provisions under section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, the assessee has Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 5 - not filed the return of income and hence notice U/sec148 of the Act was issued and there was no compliance. Further the A.O has issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire on 21- 05-2014, 14.08.2014, 24.12.2014 and 13.01.2015 and there was no compliance. Further in the penalty proceedings, the AO has issued notice of hearing on 29.01.2015, 25.05.2015 & 15.07.2015 and none appeared on behalf of the assessee though the sufficient opportunities were provided nor the explanations were filed mentioning the reasonable cause. We found that the CIT(A) dealt on the facts, information and the series of non compliances of notices by the assesee and called for the A.O report on the service of notices dealt at Page 3 Para 5 of the CIT(A) order read as under:
5. The appellant has contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) amounting to Rs10,000/-. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has contended that no notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was served to the assessee. The assessee has also claimed that notices issued during the assessment proceedings were also not served on the assessee. In this regard, the AO was requested vide this office letter No.831 dated 29.12.2017 to send specific report on the service of notices during the assessment proceedings and during the penalty proceedings u/s Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 6 -
271(1)(b) of the Act. In response to the same, the AO vide his office letter No.8567 dated 15.01.2018 has furnished the report regarding issuance and service of various notices as under:-
Sl Notice Dispatch No / Date Through No. 1 148 10.03.2014 Speed post dated 10.03.2014 2 142(1) 106/21.05.2014 Speed post dated 22.05.2014 and AD received from the assessee 3 143(2) 15.07.2014 Speed post dated 16.07.2014 4 Adjourned letter 17.07.2014 Letter received from received from adjournment for A/R the hearing assessee 5 Show cause 14.08.2014 Speed post dated notice 19.08.2014 6 142(1) 923/24.12.2014 By hand to kamla Ganna P/o M/s Shreenath Products 7 Show cause 1095/13.01.2015 Speed post dated notice 15.01.2015 8 144/147 1766/29.01.2015 Speed post dated 15.01.2015 9 Penalty Memo 215/19.05.2015 Speed post dated u/s 20.05.2015 271(1)(b)/271(1)( c) 10 Penalty Memo 488/15.07.2015 Speed post dated u/s 19.08.2014 271(1)(b)/271(1)( c) 11 Penalty order 567/22.07.2015 Speed post dated 271(1)(c) 23.07.2015 12 Penalty order 566/22.07.2015 Speed post dated 271(1)(c) 2307.2015
We find the CIT(A) has considered the facts, circumstances, submissions, and non compliances of statutory notices by the assessee without any valid
Shrinath Products, Udaipur. - 7 - reasons in spite of providing sufficient opportunities. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2023.