WACHOVIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-27(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1664/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 April 2023AY 2011-123 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's failure to comply with notices and explain the delay in filing the appeal was noted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice under Section 271(1)(b). The assessee also delayed filing an appeal before the CIT(A) by 735 days without providing a reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied for non-compliance with notices, and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & DR. BRR KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.04.2023

आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 01/09/2021 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In spite of issue of notice on several dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought.

Therefore, we hear the Ld. DR and dispose of the appeal on merits.

2.

The Ld. DR submits that in the course of assessment proceedings assessee did not comply with the notice dated 15.06.2018 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire. The assessee could not explain the reasonable cause for not complying with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and there was no replying to the show cause issued u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act also. Thus, the Assessing Officer levied penalty as the assessee has not furnished any reply nor shown any reasonable cause for not responding to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.06.2018. Ld. DR submits that the assessee filed appeal before the NFAC, Delhi with the delay of 735 days. The Ld.CIT(A) issued notices on 18.02.2021 and 03.08.2021 through ITBA on registered e-mail of the assessee and delivered as verified from the ITBA portal. The assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi. Ld. DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), (NFAC) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there is no justification for the delay of 735 days in filing the appeal without condoning the delay.

3.

On hearing the Ld. DR and on perusal of the penalty order and the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (NFAC) it is observed that there was no compliance by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings for the notice issued u/s 142(1) and also to the show cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

Even before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) (NFAC) the assessee did not explain the delay of 735 days in filing the appeal, even though, the notices were served by the NFAC on the assessee through ITBA portal. Even before us, the assessee could not explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). Thus, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the Commissioner(Appeals) (NFAC), New Delhi. Grounds raised by the assessee are rejected.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2023

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →