M/S. HONEST MARKETING PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 10-01-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nashik [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2011-12, wherein, he confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act.

The sole ground raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in imposing the penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear ld. DR and decide the issue on hand on merits basing on the material available on record.

During the course of penalty proceedings, the AO found that the prescribed person responsible for deduction of tax under the Act did not prepare and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed Income Tax Authority, a quarterly statement u/s. 200(3) within prescribed time. A notice u/s. 272(2)(k) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued to the deductor on 24-09-2012 for periodicity Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 in Form No. 26Q and Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 in Form No. 27EQ. We find there was no compliance to the above said notices before the AO by the assessee. In the absence of any evidence or not preparing and delivering quarterly statement as required u/s. 200(3) of the Act, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.1,23,400/- against default for not preparing and delivering statement in its order at para 5.

As aggrieved by the order of JCIT, TDS Range, Nashik the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein we find that the CIT(A) issued five notices and there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Having no recourse the CIT(A) decided the issue raised before him on the basis of merits taking into consideration ground of appeal and statement of facts filed before him. Therefore, it is clear in both the authorities below the assessee failed to appear and furnish any reasons for not preparing and delivering the statement to the prescribing authority as required u/s. 200(3) of the Act.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.