Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
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.
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]
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.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed.