HARISH CHANANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(1), NEW DELHI

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-36, New Delhi dated 13.08.2019 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte order.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing opportunity of being heard.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice. ./2019

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad- in-law and without jurisdiction and CIT (A) erred in not holding so.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of the AO in imposing penalty of Rs.33,93,422/- on account of u/s 271(1)(c).

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act was defective notice and therefore, penalty levied is liable to be cancelled.”

3. In this case, upon levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for an amount of Rs.33,93,422/-, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) noted the facts leading to the levy of penalty as under :- “In this case assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, on 21.12.2009 at a total income of Rs.1,02,53,410/- as against returned income of Rs.92,410/- after making total additions of Rs.1,01,61,000/-.

During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to produce books of account, vouchers and bills. Despite allowing various opportunities of being heard, the assessee did not produce the books of accounts, vouchers and bills etc. Therefore an addition of Rs.25,000/ - was made under the head unverifiable nature of trading account and expense. The same has been deleted by the CIT(A) XXVII, New Delhi vide 166/2009-10 dated 15.09.2010. Additions were made as below:-

The explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable as the Ld. CIT(A) had also confirmed the additions and the assessee had concealed the particular of income I furnished wrong particulars of his income as per Income Tax Act., the excuse of the assessee that the CA has furnished wrong particulars while preparing the return for the year under consideration.

In the light of the above case facts, it was clearly established that the assessee had filed inaccurate particular of his income and concealed his true income. As such it was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly a minimum penalty of Rs.33,93,422/- was imposed upon the assessee u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act.”

3.6 I have gone through the impugned order and facts of the case. The appellant has chosen not to appear during the appellate proceedings. ./2019 3.7 Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing officer U/s 271(1)(c) is sustained, on the reasons given in the Assessment order. In the result, this appeal is DISMISSED.”