AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), MOHALI , MOHALI

The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A.Y. 2010-11 2

The ld. AO got an information that assessee has made deposits of more than Rs.2.60 Cr in the Saving Bank Account and did not file the return. Therefore, he reopened the assessment and issued notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not respond to these notices, hence, he has passed the assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act on 22.12.2017. It was an ex- parte order according to the best judgement of the AO. This order was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in appeal.

Aggrieved with the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 09.09.2019, assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing ITA No. 1438/CHD/2019. This appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes and issues are relegated to the file of CIT (Appeals).

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that assessee did not participate any of the proceedings, either assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings u/s 271F, 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he has not replied for any of the notices issued by the Revenue. It is pertinent to A.Y. 2010-11 3 observe that Tribunal has set aside the quantum addition by considering the aspect that punishment in the shape of tax liability is far dis-proportionate to the negligence committed by the assessee by not prosecuting the income tax proceedings, but here a nominal punishment of Rs.10,000/- is not dis-proportionate for his negligence. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) is confirmed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.