RAPAR TRADING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1425/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2017AY 2010-112 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 provided no reasons for non-compliance with the notice. Since the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal either, the appeal was decided ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer despite a notice under section 142(1) being issued. Consequently, a penalty was levied under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance. The assessee also did not appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty imposed for non-compliance with the Assessing Officer's notice. The lack of any explanation from the assessee for this non-compliance was central to the decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Hearing: 24/08/2017Pronounced: 15/09/2017

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 14 Mumbai dated 23/01/2017, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 04/12/2015.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has any application for adjournment placed before us inspite of notice of hearing being served upon the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal ex-parte qua the appellant after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative on merits in terms of Rule -24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

The only issue in this appeal is penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) by the Assessing Officer. The penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the order of the CIT(A) reveal that no reasons have been put-forth by the assessee for non- appearance/non-compliance of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Even before us, there is no reason canvassed for the non- compliance, therefore, the levy of penalty is upheld.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/09/2017.

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 →