DEVENDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-59(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5986/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2022AY 2014-153 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 upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee failed to provide any explanation for non-compliance with statutory notices. The findings of the lower authorities were affirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 concerns the upholding of a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee did not appear for hearings, and no explanation was provided for the non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was correctly upheld in the absence of any explanation from the assessee for non-compliance with statutory notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02.03.2022Pronounced: 22.04.2022

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014- 15 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi dated 04.07.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the basis and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in:- a) Upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) without there being any penalty notice issued prior to the imposition of penalty. b) Upholding the levied of penalty only on the basis of show cause notice and also in the absence of any penalty notice issued. c) Upholding the penalty on the basis of penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) only on the basis of show cause notice and without any penalty notice. d) Upholding the penalty levy on the basis of order passed on 09.12.2016 even when the assessment order was also passed on 09.12.2016.

Year : 2014-15] e) Upholding the penalty even when penalty of Rs.10,000/- under the section has been separately again levied on the basis of penalty notice issued u/s 271(l)(b) vide notice dated 09.12.2016 which is separately pending before the CIT(A).”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that on the last date of hearing also, no one attended the proceedings. Even on various dates and also on institution of appeal, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. It is quite clear that the notices were sent to the assessee. Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

3.

Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

4.

I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of non-compliance of the notice. The assessee has not furnished any explanation regarding non- compliance of the statutory notices. In the absence of such explanation, I do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →