Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar
Appellant by : Written Submission Respondent by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 30-08-2022 Date of pronouncement : 16-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot partly confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16.
Page No 2 Shri Mukeshkumar Pravinchandra Juthani vs. ITO
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Prop. of M/s. Ambika Zerox Computer Jobwork located Opp. Bus Station, dist. Junagadh. An ex parte assessment orders u/s. 144 of the Act was passed on 06.12.2017 determining the total income at Rs. 1,32,84,440/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,06,440/-. As against the several notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has not responded. Therefore the Ld. A.O. levied a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Aggrieved against this penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Rajkot. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- and confirmed the balance penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as follows: 5.0 The penalty order u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act of the AO and written submission of the AR of the appellant have been considered. The appellant has filed numerous grounds of appeal
which are reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order. However, the written submission of the AR of the appellant as reproduced in earlier paragraphs of this appeal order is not found to be tenable. The AR of the appellant in his written submission has mainly contended that the appellant was accorded very short period for compliance of notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. But in my opinion, if the appellant was not able to comply with the notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, because of short period as accorded by the AO, then he could have sought for adjournment by way of filing letter to the AO instead of not complying with the statutory notices. Thus the fact is that the appellant has committed default by not complying with the statutory notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act. However, in my opinion if there were non-compliance of various notices issued u/s 142(1)/143(2), then also the penalty u/s 271(l)(b) could not be imposed for each and every default. If the default being same, penalty should be imposed for first default only. This is in view of the fact that section 271(l)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. In this regard support is drawn from the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani vs. DCIT,
60. Taxmann.com 131 and Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Shri Mahendra J. Patel vs. ACIT in ITA No. 267/Ahd./2016 dated 29.03.2017. In view of this the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- out of total penalty of Rs. 60000/- as levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act is here by confirmed and remaining amount of penalty of Rs. 50000/- is hereby deleted. Thus the grounds of appeal of the appellant are partly allowed Page No 3. Shri Mukeshkumar Pravinchandra Juthani vs. ITO
4. Aggrieved against this penalty order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the multiple grounds which are repetition in nature. None appeared on behalf of the assessee but written submission have been filed. The main submission of the assessee, the notices were being given is a short date to response to the notices which is insufficient time to comply with the notices. Therefore, the remaining penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is also liable to be deleted.
5. Per contra ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and held that the Ld. CIT(A) has confined the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) only to the notices which was duly served and not complied by the assessee. The assessee would have requested the Assessing Officer for extension of time on the notices issued to it, however assessee has not responded to any of the notices, which has resulted in for passing ex parte assessment orders. Therefore the levy of penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. In fact the Ld. CIT(A) has confined the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) very particularly to the notices which has issued and served on the assessee, wherein the assessee failed to comply the notices. Thus the ld. CIT(A) partially deleted the penalty levied against the assessee wherein notices have been served to the assessee beyond the date of hearing or service of Page No 4 Shri Mukeshkumar Pravinchandra Juthani vs. ITO notices is not proved by the ld. A.O. This findings of are purely factual in nature, which does not require any interference. As the assessee has not responded to the notices which had been duly served on, it neither asked for extension of time nor sought for an adjournment. The assessee is also silent about any response made to the notices issued by the Ld. A.O. In such circumstances the levy of penalty is mandatory in nature u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act.
7. In the absence of any further details from the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee are devoid of merits, therefore the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed.