ASHOK VISHNU PANDIT,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 251/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 December 2022AY 2013-144 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 held that the assessee's non-compliance was deliberate and without sufficient reason, as no evidence was provided to support the claim of the AO being on leave. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee failed to comply with multiple notices, and the assessment order was passed ex-parte. The assessee claimed to have attended on three occasions when the AO was on leave, but provided no evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices was justified, and if the assessee had provided sufficient cause for such non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 148,Section 142,Section 274,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 12/09/2022Pronounced: 06/12/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.03.2021for the A.Y. 2013-14 under section 250 of the Act. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs.10000/- of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2. On facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merit in not appreciating the fact that on three occasion the assessee had attended and the A.O was on leave.

A.Y. 2013-14 Ashok Vishnu Pandit [A]

3. The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add any of the above grounds of appeal

and / or take any additional ground of appeal, if necessary.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied Penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/- vide order dated 11/04/2017 for AY 2013-14. As per the said order the assessee had filed return of Income for AY 2013-14 on 31/03/2014. Assessee is a proprietor of Pandit Electrical Store and M/s.A.V.Pandit Ratnagiri. Assessee executes electrical contracts. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice u/s.148 on 29/05/2015 after obtaining necessary approval and recording reasons. The assessee failed to comply the said notice. Then following notices were issued which were not complied.: Notice Remark u/s.148 dt.29/05/2015 No compliance u/s.142 dated 6/10/2016 No compliance, no adjournment letter u/s.274 rws 271(1)(b) dt.21.10.2016 No compliance, no request for adjournment Penalty show cause dt.23/02/2017 Nocompliance, no request for adjournment Even the assessment order has been passed Ex-parte u/s.144 of the Act.

3.

The case was called twice; no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No written submission filed by the assessee. No request for adjournment filed by the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Departmental Representative, perused the records.

A.Y. 2013-14 Ashok Vishnu Pandit [A]

4.

It is a fact that the assessee has not complied any of the notices issued by the AO. The assessee had not even filed a written submission or request for adjournment. This shows that the non compliance was deliberate and without any valid sufficient reason. Before us also the assessee has not filed any written submission to explain the reason for non compliance to various notices issued by the AO. The onus is on the assessee to explain the reason for non compliance. The assessee failed to explain it. In the ground of appeal the assessee claimed that he attended before the AO but the AO was on leave on that day. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence to prove the oral submission. The assessee should have filed a letter in the office of the AO on that day but he had not done anything of that kind. Therefore, there is no merit in the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was no sufficient cause for non compliance to the notices issued by the AO. Hence, we uphold the penalty order u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →