DUDHESHWARNATH STEELS P.LTD,NVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5396/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2022AY 2009-103 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 held that the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause or evidence to rebut the presumption of service of notices. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance was justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file returns and submissions despite multiple notices during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment was completed ex-parte, and penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied for non-compliance with notices without proper service proof. Whether the assessee provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SH. R.K.PANDA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 20.04.2022Pronounced: 20.04.2022

The appeal has filed by assessee against order dated 05.09.2017 in appeal no. 22/17-18 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-28, New Delhi in appeal before him against order dated 23.03.2015 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Circle 24(1), New Delhi.

2.

The Facts in brief are the assessment was completed u/s 147/144 of the Act on 27/06/2014 and in the order, the penalty proceedings were initiated by M/s. Dudheshwarnath Steels (P) Ltd. serving a notice u/s 271(1) (b) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for non compliance of notices issued from time to time during the assessment proceedings. The issue on which said penalty proceedings were initiated is narrated in brief here below. After issue of notice u/s 148, the assessee had not filed any return or any submission. Further, the assessee was issued notices u/s 142(1) on 20-05-2014 fixing the case for 30-05-2014. But, on the given dates nobody appeared nor any reply was filed. Again a Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assessee fixing the case for 23/06/2014. In reply to the said notices, no one attended the proceedings nor any submissions were submitted. Hence assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 147/144 of the Act. A show cause notice as final opportunity for being heard and show cause why penalty proceedings may not be levied u/s 271(1) (b) was issued to assessee on 11/03/2015 fixing the case for 17/03/2015. In response to this show cause also, none attended on the given date nor any reply was filed. Hence, Ld. AO levied a minimum penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty.

3.

Now before the Tribunal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T.Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty without there being any finding either by LAO or by Ld. CIT(A) that any notice in assessment or in penalty proceedings was ever served on the assessee. 3. The appellant craves, leave to add, to amend and/ or to alter the above grounds.”

M/s. Dudheshwarnath Steels (P) Ltd.

4.

As the case was called for hearing today on 20.04.2022, non-appeared for the assessee. The record shows that notices that on 01.09.2021 non appeared for assessee and the Bench issued notices. Thereafter on 17.11.2021 and 20.01.2022 also non-appeared. The notices issued were returned unclaimed for date of hearing 17.11.2021 and further the notices have been issued but have not returned. It appears assessee is not interested to prosecute its appeal. Therefore, arguments of ld. Sr. DR were heard. He submitted that the order passed is justified.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →