NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL DIST RAIGAD vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL DIST RAIGAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 67/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to pay the tax and surcharge on the declared income under the IDS, 2016, the declaration was invalid, and the income was rightly treated as unexplained. The penalty was thus rightly levied as the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared Rs.11,59,01,141/- under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, but failed to pay the tax and surcharge within the stipulated time. Consequently, the declaration was not valid. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained income and levied a penalty of Rs.69,54,070/- under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) is sustainable when the assessee failed to pay tax and surcharge on income declared under IDS, and whether the assessee provided any reasonable cause for not furnishing documents during assessment and penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 183,Section 187(1),Section 187(3),Section 271AAC(1),Section 115BBE,Section 69A,Section 139,Section 275(1)(a),Section 250,Section 46A,Section 197,Section 68,Section 69,Section 69B,Section 69C,Section 69D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Assessment year : 2017-18 Nandu Atmaram Wajekar ACIT, Panvel C001 Plot No.257, Shree Vs. Mahalaxmi Rupali Cinema Road, Panvel – 410206, Maharashtra PAN: AADPW9879Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date of hearing : 18-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18 confirming the penalty of Rs.69,54,070/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for hearing on a number of times and the assessee was not appearing. The case was last fixed for hearing on 08.12.2025 and due to non-appearance of the assessee the case was adjourned to 18.12.2025. However, today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. Further it was seen that from 07.05.2025 till 18.12.2025 the case was fixed for as many as 5 times. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in real estate. He filed Form No.1 being form of declaration u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 declaring therein a total amount of Rs.11,59,01,141/-. Accordingly, the assessee was required to pay tax, surcharge & penalty on or before the specified date mentioned in section 187(1) of the Finance Act, 2016 on the additional income offered under IDS, 2016. However, the assessee failed to pay the tax, surcharge & penalty on or before the specified date mentioned in section 187(1) of the Finance Act, 2016 and therefore, the declaration filed was not a valid declaration. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Thane cancelled Form No.2, being acknowledgement of declaration u/s 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, and passed an order u/s 187(3) of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on a number of times. However, despite number of opportunities granted the assessee did not make any reply for which the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,59,01,141/-.

4.

Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. Since the assessee despite number of opportunities granted did not make any submission, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.69,54,070/- being 10% of the tax payable u/s 115BBE of the Act by observing as under:

5.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

6.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee neither furnished any details during the course of assessment proceedings nor filed any submission during the penalty proceedings. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that he has dealt with the issue thoroughly and passed a detailed speaking order while sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In absence of any material before us to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →