GURJANT SINGH,PART VALTOHA PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1 TARN TARAN , ITO WARD TARN TARAN

Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee has claimed to be an agriculturist and has deposited cash of an amount of Rs. 13,56,500/- in his bank account at Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No. xxxxxx00384 during demonetization period and in absence of any return being filed, proceedings has been initiated u/s 142(1) and in absence of any response or compliance in course of assessment proceedings, the assessment has been completed ex-party on a total income of Rs. 13,56,500/- (treating the SBN deposit as income u/s 69A).

The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed in absence of any response to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), by observing as follows:

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the assessee in spite of so many opportunities has not been able to produce any evidence of agricultural land holdings and has not filed any documentary evidences relating to agricultural crop sale. He further submitted that in course of appellate proceedings, there was no compliance and in absence of any evidence brought on record, he prayed for the appellate order to be sustained.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 13,56,500/- in cash in his bank account during the demonetization period and in spite of repeated notices being issued and served, no return of income has been filed, and has not complied with any notices issued by the AO and even in course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has not responded to any notices and has not furnished any documentary evidences regarding agricultural crops.

This is a case where the assessee has intentionally neglected to file documentary evidences and willfully evaded compliance to statutory notices being issued and even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences to establish the existence of agricultural land holdings and sale of agricultural produce which might result in agricultural income as claimed. As such, we consider it to be a fit case where cost should be imposed and as such, a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed payable to the credit of Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, within 15 days from the date of communication of this order (evidence to be produced before the JAO).

However, considering the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee and considering that ex-parte order has been passed at both the stages, and in the interest of justice, we allow the assessee one more opportunity to produce necessary documentary evidences and to fully co-operate in proceedings before the Assessing Officer for de-novo fresh assessment.

As such, the appeal is set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment and the assessee is directed to file all documentary evidences in support of his contention and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings. heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the penalty-imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act by imposing a penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1) on three separate occasions as evident from the penalty order. It is seen from the penalty order that there has not been any compliance on the part of the assessee in response to show cause notice issued and the assessee has not even submitted any reply and has not made even a single attempt to explain his case. (The assessee has simply filed an intimation before the AO that an appeal is pending against quantum proceedings).

The matter was carried in first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC where the assessee has submitted a written submission where it has been stated that the place of resident of assessee is situated in a remote village area near Valtoha Tehsil- Patti, Distt.

The ld. AR of the assessee in course of hearing before the Tribunal submitted that the notice of hearing has not been received and as such, no appearance could be made.

The ld. DR pointed out that the assessee himself intimated the filing of appeal against quantum before Assessing Officer and asked for the penalty to be kept in abeyance as such, the argument that no notices has been received is not correct because it is the same address to which all notices has been issued.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that numerous notices has been issued without any response from the assessee and we consider it to be a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.