SAROJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 38(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 13, New Delhi dated 24.06.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] by the Assessing Officer.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that return for the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny assessment and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. No compliance was made by the assessee for the three notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, final opportunity was given vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 10.11.2017, which also remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer was left with no other option but to frame assessment order ex-party u/s 144 of the Act. Penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act were separately initiated.

During the course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any reply was filed.

The assessee agitated matter before the ld. CIT(A). Though there was a delay in filing the appeal, in her request for condonation of delay, the assessee stated that she was under a bonafide belief that her earlier Chartered Accountant would take all necessary steps to protect her interest. This reason did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay and on merits, after considering the order of the Assessing Officer, confirmed the penalty of Rs.10,000/-.

Before me, ld. counsel for the assessee could not adduce any evidence/reason for not attending the assessment proceedings nor penal proceedings. On considering the facts of the case in totality, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).

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