LATE DAVINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The assessee in the present case is an individual. A search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 06.09.2011. Pursuant to the said action, notices u/s 153A were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 19.11.2012 for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In response to the said notices, returns of income for all the relevant four years were filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs.9,52,618/-, Rs.18,250/-, Rs.7,04,840/- and Rs.1,58,487/- for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. As found by the Assessing Officer, the assessee jointly with his wife Smt. Geeta Kumar had maintained a bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland which was not disclosed. As further found by the Assessing Officer, return on deposits in the said account was credited by HSBC Bank in foreign exchange.

The assessment for assessment year 2012-13 was also completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) vide order dated 13.03.2014 wherein addition of Rs.10,00,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search.

The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer separately in respect of addition made to the total income of the assessee for all the five years under consideration as above and since he did not find merit in the detailed explanation offered by the assessee in writing in response to the notices issued during the course of the said proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for all the five years under consideration as under :-

The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) for all the five years under consideration was challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(A) and considering that there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeals for hearing from time to time, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee vide his appellate orders dated 24.02.2016 passed separately for all the five years under consideration thereby confirming the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminarily issue raised by the assessee in these appeals challenging the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte dismissing the appeals of the assessee, ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to paragraph no.4 of the ld. CIT(A)’s impugned orders, which is identical for all the five years under consideration, to point out that the appeals of the assessee were fixed by ld. CIT(A) for hearing on 17.09.2015, 30.12.2015, 15.01.2016 and 08.02.2016. He has submitted that the assessee sought adjournment on all these four occasions through his Authorized Representative, Shri R.K. Gupta. He has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) accordingly granted the adjournments but finally dismissed the appeals of the assessee vide his impugned orders passed ex-parte on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 12.02.2016. He has contended that there was no formal intimation received by the assessee for hearing fixed on 12.02.2016 even though the assessee had sought adjournment on the said date.

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of July, 2018.