Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) confirming penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the ITAT in both the first and second rounds of litigation, despite being provided sufficient opportunities.
Held
The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation and that the assessee had not appeared or provided any submissions or documents to support their grounds of appeal in either the CIT(A) stage or before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of any material, the Tribunal had no alternative but to confirm the action of the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the penalties imposed under sections 271D and 271E of the Act were justified, given the assessee's failure to appear and furnish submissions.
Sections Cited
271D, 271E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 364 & 365/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 25-01-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 in the matter of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and thus raising therein following grounds of appeal.
2 NEW INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI VS ADDL CIT (E), JAIPUR ITA NO. 364/JP/2024 - u/s 271D of the Act ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld.CIT(A) has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the case ex-parte. The ld. AR of the assessee could not appear on the hearing because the E-mail were not duly serviced on the registered E-mail of the assessee.
2. Under the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs.3.40 lacs u/s 271D of the Act is bad in law and must be deleted. - u/s 271E of the Act ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld.CIT(A) has not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the case ex-parte. The ld. AR of the assessee could not appear on the hearing because the E-mail were not duly serviced on the registered E-mail of the assessee.
Under the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs.3.40 lacs u/s 271E of the Act is bad in law and must be deleted.
2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the cases were called out for hearing. Hence, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeals ex-parte based on the material available on record. However, the ld. DR is ready to argue the cases in connection with both the appeals.
3 NEW INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI VS ADDL CIT (E), JAIPUR 2.2 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee relating to imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Act by the AO which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) by observing as under:- ‘’4.6 Further, during the course of set aside proceedings as directed by Hon’ble ITAT Bench A, Jaipur, the appellant has provided sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. However, ever after giving sufficient opportunity, the appellant did not furnish any submission to in support of his claim. From the above discussion, I do not find any excuse to take a divergent view from the view of the Addl.CIT(Exemption), Jaipur and ldCIT(A)-3, Jaipur. Hence, I uphold the order of the CIT(A)-3, Jaipur wherein the penaltyof Rs.3,40,000/- levied u/s 271D of the Act was confirmed. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.3 Similar is the position in the case of the assessee relating to confirming the penalty by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271E of the Act wherein the ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- ‘’4.6 Further, during the course of set aside proceedings as directed by Hon’ble ITAT Bench A, Jaipur, the appellant has provided sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. However, ever after giving sufficient opportunity, the appellant did not furnish any submission to in support of his claim. From the above discussion, I do not find any excuse to take a divergent view from the view of the Addl.CIT(Exemption), Jaipur and ldCIT(A)-3, Jaipur. Hence, I uphold the order of the CIT(A)-3, Jaipur wherein the penalty of Rs.3,40,000/- levied u/s 271D of the Act was confirmed.
2.4 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted by the Bench that this is the second round of litigation as during the first round of litigation the levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E imposed by the AO were challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Thereafter, the matter travelled upto ITAT Jaipur Bench who restored the appeals filed by the assessee back to the ld. CIT(A) for affording opportunity for re-deciding its appeals. However, in second round of litigation, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) even in spite of availing of sufficient opportunities and thus the assessee did not furnish any submission or documents in support of his grounds appeal. Therefore, the ld CIT(A) after evaluating the facts of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee for which the assessee preferred an appeal before this Bench on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. Although the Bench noticed that none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing nor advanced any documents to support the grounds (supra). Thus in the absence of any submissions / documents, the Bench has no other alternative except to confirm the action of the ld CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.