PRANAV MARATHE JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 09-05-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

The only issue is to be considered is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s. 272B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani and perused the material available on record. We note that there was a search action u/s. 132 of the Act conducted on assessee on 07-12-2016. During the course of search it was found that the assessee sold jewellery exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- in cash without obtaining PAN of the purchasers. According to the ld. DR that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 139A(5)(c) of the Act r.w. Rule 114C of the Rules. We note that as far as provisions u/s. 139A(5)(c) r.w. Rules 114B and 114C concerned, the assessee has to verify the details of PAN and the same has to be mentioned on sales bill. It is a statutory obligation on the assessee to comply under the said provisions in obtaining PAN as well as its verification. On perusal of the impugned order there was no evidence to show that the assessee obtained PAN and verified its correctness. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.