PRADEEP DEVRAM JADHAV,YEOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NASHIK., NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 192/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 June 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M., DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B. The assessee's failure to comply with the provisions of the VSV Act and provide necessary documentation was the primary reason for the decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT and the lower appellate authority. The assessee had also not filed necessary documents and paid disputed tax under the VSV Act, 2020, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B is sustainable when the assessee failed to comply with the requirements of the VSV Act, 2020, and did not provide necessary documentation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 18.06.2024Pronounced: 27.06.2024

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 i.e., 10.05.2024. The assessee is accordingly proceeded ex- parte.

2.

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.

8.

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.

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.

9.

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.”

3. It is clear from the above extracted lower appellate discussion that the assessee had failed to file all the relevant 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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.06.2024.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →