RAMNATH DATTASHETTY TUPTEWAR,NANDED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1276/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 April 2019AY 2012-134 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 order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. No material was presented by the assessee to controvert the findings of the lower appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in steel sheet trading, faced additions during assessment for unexplained deposits, disallowed loss, and unexplained investment. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which was partially reduced by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this penalty.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on additions made during the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad dated 18-04-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2 ITA No. 1276/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

2.

The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are : The assessee is engaged in trading of steel sheets. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made additions on following counts : i. Disallowance of loss from M/s. Roopa Steels Rs.1,47,791/-. ii. Unexplained deposits in ICICI Bank Account Rs.24,90,000/-. iii. Unexplained deposits in Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Account Rs.10,41,000/-. iv. Unexplained deposits in Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Account Rs.6,09,000/-. v. Unexplained investment in purchase of car Rs.1,18,451/-. vi. Undisclosed interest on the bank accounts Rs.16,533/-.

The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid additions. A penalty of Rs.27,58,002/- was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) vide order dated 23-09-2015. Aggrieved against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted part relief to the assessee and restricted levy of penalty to Rs.10,00,000/-. Against the penalty confirmed by the First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

A perusal of appeal file shows that the notice of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD on the address mentioned in Form No. 36 filed by the assessee. However, despite repeated notices none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The first notice for 23-07-2018 was issued on

3 ITA No. 1276/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

26-06-2018. The same was duly served to the assessee as is evident from the acknowledgment available on record. Despite service of notice neither the assessee nor any authorized representative of the assessee appeared on the date fixed. Thereafter, the appeal was adjourned to 16-10-2018. On the said date again none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. The case was thereafter adjourned to 06-12-2018. The notice of hearing of appeal was again sent to the assessee through RPAD. On the said date again none appeared to represent the assessee. The appeal was thereafter adjourned to 13-02-2019. On the said date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and material available on record.

4.

Shri Ashok Babu representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty of Rs.27,58,002/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on various additions. In First Appellate proceedings the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted the penalty to Rs.10,00,000/-. The order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is reasonable and justified.

5.

We have heard the submissions made by the ld. DR and have perused the orders of authorities below. After examining the same we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. No material has been placed on record before us controverting the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

4 ITA No. 1276/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (Vikas Awasthy) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 25th April, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →