PRADEEP DEVRAM JADHAV,YEOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NASHIK., NASHIK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15,
arises against the National Faceless Faceless Appeal Centre [in
short the “NFAC”) Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/
NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060070756(1), dated 24.01.2024, in
proceedings u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s
behest. He had also not appeared on the last date of hearing
2 ITA No.192/PUN./2024
i.e., 10.05.2024. The assessee is accordingly proceeded ex-
parte.
We note with the able assistance coming from the
Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has upheld the
Assessing Officer’s action levying sec.271B penalty of
Rs.59,153/- vide following lower appellate discussion :
“(vi) In the present case, the order u/s 5(1) of VSV
Act 2020 was already issued on 14.09.2020. The next
step is, only the payment of disputed tax determined in
that order and submission of Form-4. When notice was
issued, the appellant simply replied that Form-5 was not
issued to him and hence the appeal is maintainable. In
order to get Form-5, the appellant ought to have paid
disputed tax on or before the due date. In the present
case, it is noticed that he did not pay the tax. At this point,
the appellant decided to continue with appeal after receipt
of Form-3. However, there is no scope given in VSV Act
2020. Further, there is no scope given in the VSV Act for
the CIT(A) also to proceed with the appeal after issue of
Form-3. Subsection (7) of section 4 is very clear.
In reply dated 08.01.2024, it was submitted
that since final Form-5 was not issued, the appeal is not
maintainable. In order to get Form-5, the declarant has to
pay the disputed tax and he has to submit Form-4 to DA.
3 ITA No.192/PUN./2024
In this connection a specific notice was issued to appellant
to furnish copy of Form-4 submitted before PCIT who is the
DA. However, he did not give any reply to that notice.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed as deemed to have been
withdrawn on 14.09.2020.
Without prejudice to the above, the grounds of
appeal filed against the 271B penalty order is also not
maintainable on the ground that during the course of
survey, he has admitted that he did not maintain any
books of account in support of his business, the AO
recorded that the turnover of the business was
Rs.1,18,30,667/- and half percentage of the turnover or
Rs.1,50,000/- whichever is less was treated as penalty
u/s 271B of the IT Act. The AO rightly levied the penalty. It
is for this reason the appellant opted for VSVs scheme and
even obtained form-3 issued by DA as per section 5(1) of
VSV Act. Instead of making the payment of disputed
tax/disputed penalty the appellant mischievously
pursuing this appeal. When specific clarification on this
fact was called for, the appellant remained silent.
Accordingly, the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant
are dismissed.”
It is clear from the above extracted lower appellate
discussion that the assessee had failed to file all the relevant
4 ITA No.192/PUN./2024
details regarding his declaration under the Direct Tax VSV Act,
2020. Faced with this situation, we hardly see any reason to
interfere with the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered
accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.06.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 27th June, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to
The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, B-Bench, Pune 5. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
