RAJKUMAR MOHANLAL (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3), AHMEDABAD

Sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In response to the notice of hearing the assessee has sent one line submission contending therein that appeal be decided on merit.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that the ld.AO had confronted the assessee as to why penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed upon the assessee, because it failed to comply with notice under section 142(1) of the Act on six occasions except partial compliance of notice dated 2.3.2016. In response to this show cause notice, the assessee has not brought any material showing reasonable cause for its failure from complying with those notices. Hence, the ld.AO has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- only. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

A persual of the assessee’s submissions before the ld.CIT(A) would indicate that one of the plea taken by the assessee was non- service of notice upon it. However, it has not buttressed this submission with any plausible evidence. It has not given any explanation either before the AO or before the ld.CIT(A), in response to the notice served under section 274 r.w.s. section 271(1)(b) of the Act, vide which its explanation for non-compliance have been sought.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no plausible reason which prevented the assessee from compliance of the notice issued by the AO, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act has rightly been imposed. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th January, 2019 at Ahmedabad.