Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.08.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2014-15.
Though the notices of hearings of the instant appeal sent to the Assessee on various occasions to the address mentioned in Form-36, however the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any application of adjournment, hence in the constrained circumstances we deem it appropriate to decide this appeal as ex-parte after hearing the Ld. DR.
Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.06.2017 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- for non- compliance of notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act on dated 06.06.2016 and 03.11.2016 for the dates of hearing on 20.09.2015 and 11.11.2016 respectively.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, before whom the Assessee claimed that it had filed all major details during the assessment proceedings and in so far as non-compliance of notice on dated 20.09.2015, the Assessee requested for adjournment on the ground that the AR was busy in filing of returns and again on dated 11.11.2016, a request was made to the Assessing Officer to adjourn the case, but he refused to entertain it. The Assessee in order to substantiate its claim also filed copies of letters dated 11.11.2016 and 20.09.2015.
4.1 The Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and justified the imposition of the penalty of Rs.20,000/-for default of the appellant to comply with the notices issued on dated 06.06.2016 and 03.11.2016for the respective dates of hearing on 20.09.2015 and 11.11.2016, by observing as under:
“While examining the record and the copies of the letters filed by the Assessee, observed that there is nothing on these letters to indicate that these were filed in the office of the Assessing Officer. The signatures on these letters have been freshly made. These letters were not found in the assessment record on examination. Even if it is presumed that the Assessing Officer refused to accept the same, the appellant was free to submit the same in the office of the Assessing Officer or could have sent them by post.
There is nothing on record to suggest that these non- compliances have occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant or there existed any reasonable cause leading to non-compliance. The appellant has demonstrated lackadaisical and very casual approach towards Income-tax proceedings. From the assessment order u/s. 143(3) as well as penalty order u/s. 271(1)(1)(b) too, it is very clear that the appellant has not taken the statutory notices issued to it with seriousness and sincerity such notices deserve. Assessment proceedings cannot be left to the unilateral and unjustified decision of the appellant to attend or not to attend the hearing at its whims and fancies. The appellant has failed to establish that there actually existed any reasonable and justified reasons for these non- compliances, rather tried to mislead by creating prima facie false evidences of compliance before him.”
The Assessee being aggrieved with the impugned order is in appeal before us.
We have perused the orders passed by the authorities below and given thoughtful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the ld. Commissioner for sustaining the imposition of penalty of Rs.20,000/-.
We are in concurrence with the observations of the ld. Commissioner that the appellant has demonstrated lackadaisical and very casual approach towards Income-tax proceedings and has not taken the statutory notices issued to it with seriousness and sincerity such notices deserve and the assessment proceedings cannot be left to the unilateral and unjustified decision of the appellant to attend or not to attend the hearing at its whims and fancies.
6.1 We further observe as it clearly appears from the orders passed by the authorities below that the conduct of the Assessee remained totally unfair, un-justified and irresponsible which is not acceptable and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts specifically to the effect that the Assessee on 02 occasions i.e. dated 30.06.2016 and 16.11.2016, appeared before the Assessing Officer and also filed reply along with documents as called for by the Assessing Officer but disappeared thereafter and the Assessing Officer in the constrained circumstances, ultimatelyon the basis of the details placed on record by the Assessee, while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act added Rs.1,43,61,850/- as unexplained cash credits in the income of the Assessee, even it is not the case here of total non-compliance, as if the same would have been there, then the assessment order would have been passed u/s. 144 of the Act, but not u/s. 143(3) of the Act, hence we are inclined to delete the penalty.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.