SATISH ANANT BHADRI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), DELHI

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs (Appeals)- Delhi, Room No. 245-A, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 Respondent …………. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Kishore Chaudhari For the Respondent/Department : Shri Paresh Deshpande Date : 26.06.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 28.06.2023 Pronouncement of order O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: These are 2 appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 1. 2016-17 preferred by the Appellant against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since the appeals involve identical issues the same were heard together and are being disposed by way of a common order. (Assessment Year: 2016-17) We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 2. which has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the order, dated 09/02/2023, passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 16/03/2021, passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The relevant facts in brief are that the vide order dated 16/03/2022 3. the Assessing Officer levied penalty of INR 10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act holding that the Appellant failed to comply with notice dated 20/11/2019 during the assessment proceedings.

In appeal before CIT(A), the Appellant submitted that the Appellant 4. had complied with the notice dated 20/11/2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by filing online reply on 26/11/2019. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant against levy of the aforesaid penalty holding that the Appellant failed to provide proof of compliance of notice dated 20/11/2019. The relevant extract of the decision of CIT(A) order reads as under:

“6.5 Here in this case, the appellant submitted that he had complied with the impugned notice u/s 142(1) through ITBA during the scrutiny proceedings. In support of his argument, the screen shots from e-filing portal of the Income Tax showing the compliances made to prior notices issued in the month of September, 2019 were submitted. It is pertinent to note here is that the penalty proceedings are initiated against the non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 20.11.2019. Multiple notices u/s 142(1) were issued prior to the issuance of the impugned notice u/s. 142(1)

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) dated 20.1.2019. No penalty was imposed against the non- compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) which are issued prior to the impugned notice u/s 142(1) dated 20.11.2019. As seen from the assessment order for the impugned assessment year, there is a clear finding of AO stating that the appellant did not respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 20.11.2019. In this SCN, the AO called for the information specified in the notice issued dated on 10.09.2019. The appellant states that he had complied with the notice dated 10.09.2019 and also notice dated 20.11.2019. But, no evidences are brought on record by the appellant.

6.6 It is not understood why the appellant could not able to furnish the compliance screen shot dated 26.11.2019 from the e-filing portal of the Department when he was able to produce the same for earlier compliances.” (Emphasis Supplied)

Being aggrieved the Appellant has preferred appeal before us.