MUKESH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1745/DEL/2020Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 August 2022AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s orders, noting that the assessee was given reasonable opportunities to defend themselves but failed to appear. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders confirming penalties levied by the AO. The assessee failed to appear before the AO, CIT(A), and the ITAT despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified, given the assessee's consistent non-appearance and failure to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271F,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 04/08/2022Pronounced: 04/08/2022

Appellant None Respondent Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04/08/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: is the appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 31.01.2020 pertai ning to A.Y.2011-12 wherein the CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271F of the Act amounting to Rs.5000/- by an exparte order.

06.03.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act amounting to Rs.812547/-.

3.

CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 31.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12 wherein the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,000/- by an exparte order.

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that in none of the appeal mentioned here-in- above the assessee or her authorized representative appeared before the AO and also none appeared before the first appellate authority. Even before us no one cared to appear inspite of notice.

6.

A perusal of the orders show that for each fault reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee to defend herself but the assessee failed to make any submission and, therefore, the respective penalties were levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

7.

We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). All the captioned appeals are accordingly dismissed.

8.

Decision announced in the open court on 04.08.2022.

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →