CHAMPSI AVCHAR GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 23/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2017AY 2011-124 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 affirmed the penalty imposed for non-compliance with notices, citing the assessee's consistent absence and lack of plausible explanation.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite notices. The assessee also did not appear before the ITAT, and no adjournment petition was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for non-compliance with notices was rightly imposed when the assessee failed to appear before the tax authorities.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri JOGINDER SINGH, & Shri G. MANJUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal -DR
Hearing: 29/11/2017

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26/10/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the levy of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing, none was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notice on 18/10/2017 for today. The assessee neither presented himself nor moved adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee has nothing to say. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, defended the imposition of penalty by contending that even before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee did not appear for which our attention was invited to para-2 of the impugned order.

1.

2.1. We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the ld. Assessing Officer issued notices to the assessee on 06/08/2012 and 01/08/2013. As per the assessee, such notices were not handed over in time, therefore, could not appear before the Assessing Officer. It

Shri Champsi Avachar Gala is further noted that the assessee did not respond to the notices as mentioned in para-2 of the impugned order. Even on 06/09/2013, the assessee filed incomplete details and the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty vide order dated 10/09/2013 for non-compliance of notices. It is also noted that even on 19/10/2015, nobody appeared before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and no evidence was filed before the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). As mentioned earlier, in spite of issuance of registered AD notice by the registry of the Tribunal, there was no response from the assessee on 15/06/2017 and 29/11/2017. Thus, in the absence of any plausible explanation and non- appearance of the assessee, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 29/11/2017.

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 →