"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 963/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ajmer Singh, C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Vs The ITO, Ward 6(5), Mohali. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWJPS6206H अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 21.08.2024 passed for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.963/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 2 3. The ld. AO got an information that assessee has made deposits of more than Rs.2.60 Cr in the Saving Bank Account and did not file the return. Therefore, he reopened the assessment and issued notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not respond to these notices, hence, he has passed the assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act on 22.12.2017. It was an ex- parte order according to the best judgement of the AO. This order was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in appeal. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 09.09.2019, assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing ITA No. 1438/CHD/2019. This appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes and issues are relegated to the file of CIT (Appeals). 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that assessee did not participate any of the proceedings, either assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings u/s 271F, 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he has not replied for any of the notices issued by the Revenue. It is pertinent to ITA No.963/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 3 observe that Tribunal has set aside the quantum addition by considering the aspect that punishment in the shape of tax liability is far dis-proportionate to the negligence committed by the assessee by not prosecuting the income tax proceedings, but here a nominal punishment of Rs.10,000/- is not dis-proportionate for his negligence. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) is confirmed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 17.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "