CROWN TECHNOBUILD PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Earlier the appeal of assessee were dismissed for default which is restored by allowing the M.A. of the Assessee.

2 ITA.No.3862/Del./2016 M/s. Crown Technobuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 3. The record reveal that earlier appeal was adjourned on the request of Counsel for Assessee. On 29.07.2019 none were present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, appeal was adjourned to 14.11.2019. Notice was issued through registered post. However, none appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal on 14.11.2019 despite service of notice. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal.

The appeal is time barred by 02 days. The assessee in the application for condonation of delay has explained that the impugned order was served upon Security Guard who suddenly had an attack and went on leave without informing anyone and without giving copy of the Order to any employee. In fact, he became unconscious in the Office itself and was shifted to hospital by some members of the staff. The order was received later on and by that time the due date of filing of the appeal had already expired.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, amounting to Rs.3,19,024/-. The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in construction activities. It filed its return of income for assessment year under appeal declaring income of Rs.21,56,080/-. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) Dated 29.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs.31,88,514/- and two additions were made by the A.O. A sum of Rs.5,11,286/- claimed by the assessee under section 24(b) as interest on borrowed capital, for acquiring house property which was however was actually upfront money was disallowed. Further addition of Rs.5,21,148/- was made under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide Order Dated 02.01.2013. The A.O. levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

None present for assessee on the date of hearing of the appeal. I have heard the Ld. D.R. who has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below as well as filed written submissions and contended that penalty is rightly imposed in the matter. After considering the Ld. D.R. in the light of finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) which is not rebutted by the assessee in any manner, I do not find any justification to interfere with the Orders of the authorities below in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Appeal of assessee dismissed.

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed.