Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.C. GUPTA
ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER
These two appeals by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 19th September, 2013. These are being disposed of with this consolidated order.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee- appellant and, therefore, the appeals of the assessee are being decided ex-parte qua the assessee on merits after hearing the arguments of learned DR.
Both the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 113 days before the Tribunal. I have heard the learned DR on the issue and have also considered the contents of the affidavit of the assessee
2 ITA-2157 & 2158/Del/2014 explaining the reason for the delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has deposed on affidavit that it was due to oversight of the officer clerk that the entire record was misplaced and got tagged in some other dead files and was finally traced on 5th April, 2014 and appeals were preferred immediately thereafter. In these facts, I am of the view that it is a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and, accordingly, the delay in filing both these appeals is condoned.
ITA No.2157/Del/2014 – Under Section 271(1)(c) : ITA No.2157/Del/2014 Under Section 271(1)(c) : Under Section 271(1)(c) :- Under Section 271(1)(c) : 4. The only ground of appeal of the assessee is as under:-
“That the ld.CIT Appeal completely erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for Rs.1,66,125/- contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case.”
Learned DR has relied on the order of the learned CIT(A).
I have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). It is a case where addition/disallowance was made for no explanation regarding non-maintenance or non-production of bills/vouchers could be furnished by the assessee. The income of the assessee was estimated by the Assessing Officer and the addition was sustained by the learned CIT(A). I find that in the absence of supporting evidence for allowability of the expenses claimed by the assessee, certain disallowance made could be sustained but this fact alone is not sufficient to sustain the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is no material brought on record on behalf of the Revenue to suggest that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or filing
3 ITA-2157 & 2158/Del/2014 of inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the assessee could not file the supporting vouchers/bills for the expenses claimed by it, it could not be concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus expenses and could be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The conduct of the assessee was bona-fide and the assessee has filed an explanation before the Revenue authorities. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is accordingly cancelled and the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITA No.215 ITA No.215 ITA No.215 /Del/2014 /Del/2014 – Under Section 271(1)( /Del/2014 Under Section 271(1)( Under Section 271(1)(b) : Under Section 271(1)( ) : ) :- ) : 7. The only ground of appeal of the assessee is as under:-
“That the ld.CIT Appeal completely erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act for Rs.1,66,125/- contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case.”
Learned DR has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
I have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). I find that there is a mistake in the ground of appeal of the assessee in writing the amount of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at `1,66,125/-, which is actually `10,000/- only. I find that the assessee was required to file certain information/documents before the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings. However, the assessee has failed to comply with the statutory requirement without any valid reason and therefore, in my view, the penalty imposed at `10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was reasonable
4 ITA-2157 & 2158/Del/2014 and is accordingly confirmed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 5th October, 2015.