SH. JEET SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar both dated 26.02.2015, wherein, he has confirmed the penalty levied by the ld CIT(A) u/s 271A of Rs. 25000/- and u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10000/- for Assessment Year 2009-10.

First we take up 271A of the Act.

The assessee is an individual who filed his return of income 29.03.2010 for Rs. 271150/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR (Annual Information Report). The information was that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 12,30,000/- in his bank account with Union Bank of India, Model Town Branch, Ghaziabad. It was informed to the ld AO that the assessee has carried out business of purchase and sale of land. The ld AO asked the assessee to produce the books of account but same were never produced before the ld AO. Consequently, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on income of Rs. 20,00,010/-. During the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished Page | 1 Jeet Singh Vs. ITO, (Assessment Year: 2009-10) copy of the profit and loss account and balance sheet and disclosed sale of land of Rs. 22,26,500/- but no books of account were maintained. The ld AO noted that provision of Section 44AA provides that the assessee is required to maintain books of account. The penalty notice was issued to the assessee on 26.12.2011. After issue of many notices, on 20.06.2012, the counsel of the assessee appeared and stated that the assessee has produced the books of account before the ld AO. He referred to the order sheet entry dated 2 and 12/12/2011. The ld AO verified the order sheet entry and found the claim of the assessee is incorrect. Therefore, he levied a penalty u/s 271A of Rs. 25000/- vide order dated 29.06.2012. The assessee challenged the order before ld CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty and therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence, the issue is decided on merits of the case.

The ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the contention of the ld DR and found that according to the provisions of section 44AA of the Act the assessee is required to maintain the books of account. These facts remains undisputed before the lower authorities. Despite repeated opportunities the assessee did not produce books of account before the ld AO. He produced only the balance sheet and profit and loss account. The claim of the assessee is that he has produced the books of accounts during the course of assessment proceedings. Such claim was found to be false by the ld AO and ld CIT(A). Even during the course of penalty proceedings the assessee did not produce the books of accounts to prove his bona fide. If the assessee has produced the books of accounts during the original assessment proceedings and the ld AO has not mentioned the same in the order sheet entries, then the assessee could have explained his version of producing the same books of accounts in penalty proceeding. It was not done. In view of this, we do not find that there is any reason to believe that the assessee has maintained the books of Jeet Singh Vs. ITO, (Assessment Year: 2009-10) accounts. There is no reasonable cause shown before the lower authorities. In view of this, we do not interfere with the order of the lower authorities. Hence, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 25000/- levied by the ld AO u/s 271A of the Act.

Accordingly, filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Now we come to the appeal No. 3251/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 against conformation of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee was issued four notices as mentioned in para No. 5 of the order of the ld CIT(A), however, the assessee did not appear on all the four dates before the ld AO. Subsequently, on 17.11.2011 which was not a scheduled date of hearing, the counsel of the assessee attended and furnished the part details. Therefore, the ld AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and notice was issued on 26.12.2011. Despite several notices none appeared even in the penalty proceedings and subsequently, on the last date of hearing the counsel of the assessee submitted a written submission. The ld AO rejected the submission of the assessee by holding that the assessee is non-cooperative and deliberately avoiding the proceedings in the matter. Therefore, despite there being four defaults the ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 10000/- vide order dated 27.06.2011 for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.11.2011 fixing the date of hearing on 14.11.2011. Against the order of the ld AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty.

Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the appeal is decided on the merits of the case.

The ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the contention of the ld DR and find that the ld AO has issued four notices which was not complied by the assessee. Further, in the penalty proceedings also more than one notice