MR.KANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2238/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2019AY 2011-123 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 upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) as the assessee showed contempt for statutory notices and provided no reasonable cause for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty was levied for non-compliance with statutory notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was justified for non-response to statutory notices without any reasonable cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Date of Hearing – 30.04.2019 Date of Order – 30.04.2019

O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 26th December 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2011–12.

2.

Ground raised by the assessee is as under:–

2 Shri Kantilal Jain

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act which is most unjustified and arbitrary.”

3.

In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to ` 10,000, was levied by the Assessing Officer for non– response by the assessee to the notices of hearing given by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer duly noted that the assessee did not respond to the notices sent for hearing. The assessee did not even respond the to the penalty notice in this regard.

4.

Upon the levy of penalty, the assessee appeared before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) also noted that despite several notices, the assessee did not respond. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that in the absence of any reasonable cause, non–compliance of the statutory notices leads to the levy of penalty. He accordingly upheld the same. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative. 2. Despite notice, none appeared. It is noted that earlier also the appeal has been fixed for hearing but the same has been adjourned at the request of Counsel. An adjournment letter has been given today also. But in the facts of continuous non–cooperation by the assessee, the same has been rejected by the Bench. Upon careful consideration, we

3 Shri Kantilal Jain note that in the entire proceedings, there is no response by the assessee as to why there was no response to the statutory notices. We note that the assessee has shown letter contempt for the statutory notices. This has gone up with the level of learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal, where the assessee has continuously not responded. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the levy of penalty. Accordingly, we uphold the same.

In the result, assessee appeal stands dismissed. 3. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2019

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 →