AJIT NARAYAN PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1399/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 February 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)4 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 appeals for non-prosecution due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance. Furthermore, even on merits, the Tribunal found no infirmity in upholding the penalty for concealment of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear or provide compliance for multiple hearing opportunities before the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The assessee had also admitted to suppressing receipts during a search under section 132(4).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is justified when income is suppressed and later admitted, and whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 132(4),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Respondent: Shri Gaurav K. Singh, DR
Hearing: 19/02/2024Pronounced: 20/02/2024

ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-11, Pune, each dated 27/10/2023 & 30/10/2023 for A.Y.2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively as per the grounds of appeal on record.

1.

2. In these cases, penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the assessee, which is the solitary grievance in the present matter before us.

3.

We observe from the proceedings before the first appellate authority that in 5 & 6,

ITA Nos.1398 & 1399/PUN/2023 Ajit Narayan Patil there were six opportunities of hearing given to the assessee by the ld.CIT(A) and in all those six opportunities, the assessee had failed to respond and there was also no compliance by the assessee. Similarly, for before the ld. CIT(A) there were eight opportunities of hearing given to the assessee, as evident from para 5 & 6 of the order, but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices nor provided any compliance for hearing. That, even before this Tribunal, this is the 4th opportunity of hearing given to the assessee, but still on this day of hearing, assessee has not appeared nor has filed any written submissions. Therefore, the evasive nature of the assessee is absolutely clear and that he is taking the process of law in a very casual manner, thereby, delaying the outcome of justice. We, therefore, find no infirmity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in these matters for dismissing the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution since mere filing of the appeal is not sufficient, but the assessee who has filed appeal, should be vigilant and should take his case to a logical end. That, with the present attitude and conduct of the assessee, it is evident that he is not interested in pursuing his appeals and therefore, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution.

4.

That, on merits also, the assessee has suppressed his receipts and this fact had also been admitted by him in the statement recorded u/sec. 132(4) of the Act. That, during the course of penalty & 1399/PUN/2023 Ajit Narayan Patil proceedings also, no response or explanation were filed before the AO, which we have already examined. Even before the ld. CIT(A) in spite of being given more than reasonable opportunities, the assessee had failed to respond to hearing notices and even before the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any submissions nor has appeared on the given date of hearing to represent his case on merits. The only contention that has been submitted by the assessee in his defence on merits is that he has declared the suppressed receipts amount in his return of income filed u/sec. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal.) has held that even subsequent to search, if the assessee voluntarily discloses a sum and offers the same to tax, since the said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied u/sec. 271(1)(c) was justified. The SLP against the same decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasanna Dugar v. CIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 175 (SC) holding that even if assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A was justified.

5.

Reverting to the present fact situation, it is evident that due to search action, it was disclosed that there had been suppression of receipts by the assessee. This suppression of receipts was also later on admitted by the assessee vide his statement u/sec. 132(4) of the & 1399/PUN/2023 Ajit Narayan Patil Act. The suppress receipts were even disclosed as additional income in the return filed u/sec. 153A of the Act by the assessee. But the fact remains that if search had not taken place, then these suppressed receipts would not have been discovered and would have escaped being taxed. This is a definite case of concealment of income. Considering the facts and circumstances and the legal position in this matter, even on merits also, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the levy of penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. All the grounds, in both the appeals, raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 20th February, 2024.

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 →