Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013- 14 against impugned appellate order dated 03/01/2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The dispute in this appeal pertains to penalty levied by Addl. Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) vide order dated 18/09/2013. The Sub Registrar (the appellant in the present appeal) was requested to furnish information vide statutory notice dated 06/09/2012 issued u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act. However, the Sub Registrar did not make any compliance to the notice. In view of the non compliance on the part of the Sub Registrar, aforesaid order dated 18/09/2013 was passed levying penalty u/s 272A(2)(C) of the IT Act amounting to Rs.35,500/-. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:
(C) The assessee’s appeal, filed against the aforesaid order dated 18/09/2013 in the office of the learned CIT(A), was dismissed vide impugned appellate order dated 03/01/2019. The relevant portion of the order of learned CIT(A) is reproduced below:
(D) At the time of hearing before us on 03/12/2024, none appeared from the side of the appellant. On earlier dates of hearing on 07/06/2023, 21/08/2023, 22/11/2023 and 28/02/2024 also, there was no representation from the side of the appellant. On 26/09/2024, Sri Krishna Kumar Mishra (stated to be the Sub-Registrar) himself attended. On his request, the hearing was adjourned to 03/12/2024, which was pronounced in open court. Once again (as stated earlier) there was no representation from the side of the appellant. Thus, it can be seen that there was continued non- compliance with notices of hearing by the appellant. In the absence of any representation from the appellant side, we heard the learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue who relied on the order dated 18/09/2013 passed by Addl. Director of Income Tax (I&CI) and dated 03/01/2019 passed by learned CIT(A) respectively.
(E) We have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid notice dated 06/09/2012 was issued u/s 133(6) of the IT Act. It is also not in dispute that the assessee did not make any compliance to the aforesaid notice. Nothing has been brought for our consideration from either side to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by learned CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order dated 03/01/2019. Considering the continued absence from the hearings in ITAT, despite having been issued several notices, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case before us, we are constrained to uphold the order of learned CIT(A). In view of the foregoing, we hold that the order passed by learned CIT(A) is just and fair and in accordance with law having regard to facts and circumstances of the case.
(F) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 05/12/2024)