Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G ”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai ( in short ‘the CIT(A) ’) dated 21/02/2019 for the assessment year 2007-08.
The notice of hearing of appeal was repeatedly sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No.36. The notices sent through RPAD were received back from Postal Authorities unserved with remarks “unclaimed”.
The assessee has not bothered to furnish new/fresh address in case of change of address for service of notice. Since, the time this appeal was first listed for hearing on 01/02/2021 none appeared to represent the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was ever received. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal, therefore, this appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld.Departmental Representative and material available on record.
The assessee in appeal has assailed levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’ ]. The penalty u/s. 271E of the Act has been levied as the assessee has repaid an amount of Rs.7.00 lacs to Shri Atul Kothari in cash from whom the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.77,40,000/-. Since, the loan was repaid in violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 02/08/2010. After being unsuccessful before the CIT(A) the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.8008/Mum/2011. The Tribunal vide order dated 20/03/2013 restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the facts after giving due opportunity to the assessee to place on record the relevant documents. In second round, the Assessing Officer in line with the directions of the Tribunal proceeded with the issue and again levied penalty u/s. 271E of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269T of the Act. The assessee assailed penalty order dated 30/03/2015 before the CIT(A) . The CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of assessee. No material is available before the Tribunal to controvert the findings of CIT(A). Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 2nd day of August, 2022.