RAJENDRA KUMAR GANGWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5600/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 August 2016AY 2001-024 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 dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the additions made. The assessee failed to demonstrate that the additions were not on account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at a higher amount than declared, with additions made for disallowed commission payments. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and whether the assessee's appeal was maintainable due to procedural defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI NABIN KUMAR PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane

Instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd June 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 16, Mumbai, confirming imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2001–02.

2.

Brief facts appearing from the material available on record are, the assessee in individual filed his return of income on 22nd October

2 Shri Rajendra Kumar Gangwal 2001, declaring total income of ` 7,26,545. Assessment in case of assessee was completed under section 143(3) on 21st January 2003, determining total income of ` 8,05,050. The assessment order so passed was revised by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under section 263 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine in detail the commission payments claimed to have been made by the assessee. While completing the assessment in pursuance of the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under section 263, the Assessing Officer in order dated 27th March 2006, disallowed commission payment of ` 1,18,500. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

3.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) again restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verifying certain aspects of the commission payment. In pursuance to the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) r/w 250 vide order dated 31st December 2008, disallowing further sum of ` 50,000 out of the commission payment. On the basis of addition made on account of commission payment, proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated and ultimately the Assessing Officer, as it appears, passed an order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) for an amount of `

3 Shri Rajendra Kumar Gangwal 81,512. Against the penalty order so passed, assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

4.

Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order confirmed the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

5.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. On a perusal of record, we have noted that on many previous occasions also, the assessee has defaulted in appearing before the Tribunal to represent his case. Further, it is seen that the assessee has not enclosed a copy of the penalty order in the memorandum of appeal as per the statutory provisions contained in rule 9 of IT(AT) Rule, 1963. Though, this defect was pointed out by the registry in notice dated 17th November 2014, but, there is no compliance by the assessee for removing the defect. The aforesaid facts indicate that the assessee is neither diligent nor interested in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee being defective and the assessee having not cured the defect pointed out by the Registry, cannot be admitted, hence, deserves to be dismissed without being admitted.

6.

Even otherwise also, the assessee has not satisfactorily explained that the addition made was not on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income so as to invite

4 Shri Rajendra Kumar Gangwal imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, in the absence of a reasonable explanation offered by the assessee to demonstrate that neither there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on his part, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.08.2016

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →