Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member ITA No728./Hyd/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Praveen Kumar Jain Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Narsapur Central Circle 1(2) PAN:ACKPP6359H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA Revenue by: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 21/03/2023 Date of pronouncement: 24/03/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.07.2022 of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2011-12.
Levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and sustained by the CIT (A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the ground of appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of pawn broking under the name and style of M/s. Jeevibai Bankers at Narsapuram. He filed
ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain his return of income on 16.09.2021 declaring total income of Rs.3,60,060/-. A survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 12.5.2013 during which certain incriminating material was found and impounded. It was observed from verification of certain documents that the assessee has carried cash transfer transaction from 10.03.2011 to 13,04,2011. The statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act on 21.11.2016 wherein he confirmed the cash transfer transaction stating that he has received commission of Rs.150/- for Rs.1.00 lakh on this type of business transaction. The Assessing Officer observed that in the case of Sri Anil Kumar Jain, who is doing the same business and who is a relative of the assessee, it was evidenced that the commission ranges from 0.3% to 0.5% at many instances. Accordingly, the commission income was calculated adopting @0.30% on the turnover of the transactions in the case of the assessee which according to the Assessing Officer has escaped the assessment. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.3.2017 by recording the reasons which was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) dated 4.10.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer issued another notice to the assessee to explain as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.6,69,370/- by calculating such commission at 0.30% of the turnover.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income on Page 2 of 10
ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain 30.11.2018. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee, despite number of opportunities granted, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the by observing as under:
“6. The Decision: In the instant case, the assessment was completed u/s 144 by addition of Rs.6,69,370/- being commission. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)c) amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- was levied vide order dated 31.05.2019 against which the appellant had filed an appeal. The appellant was dismissed by CIT(A) on account of delay vide order in Appeal No.10412/2019-20 dated 24.02.2021.
Against the order of CIT{A), the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT wherein the Hon'ble ITAT vide order in 1TA No.173/Hyd/2021 dated 29.10.2021 restored the file to CIT(A) with a direction to give 3 opportunities for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has scant regard for the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) despite survey in the residence of the assessee. Despite stating that he receives commission of Rs.150/- for each one Lakh on the type of business carried on by ITA 728 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Jain him, during the course of survey, the assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 nor complied to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer for which the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass ex-parte order determining the income of the assessee at Rs.6,69,370/-. He thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- due to non-appearance. We find the learned CIT (A) also gave multiple opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his case and here also there was no compliance for which the learned CIT (A) sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for Rs.1,50,000/- and the reasons have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) confirming the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer since the assessee himself has accepted the addition which was based on the impounded material. Since the learned CIT (A) has given justifiable reasons while sustaining the penalty, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in his order and accordingly, we uphold the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.