BEEKAU BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

MA 36/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Beekau Bhardwaj, who was penalized by the Income Tax Officer for non-compliance with notices requiring him to furnish a return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. The initial penalty of Rs. 30,000 was contested and led to an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but later, upon a miscellaneous application for rectification, reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000, acknowledging the assessee's argument that the penalty was excessive given it was his only default.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469946 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 142(1); 139; 274

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM MA No. 36/JP/2024 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la- ITA No. 523/JP/2024) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj 315, DDA Flats, PKT IInd, Dwarkadhis Apptt. Sector-12, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AJVPB1894K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 14/02/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. Present miscellaneous application came to be presented on 27.08.2024, with a prayer for rectification of order dated 01.08.2024 passed by Appellate Tribunal while disposing of ITA No. 523/JP/2024. The matter relates to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. ITA No. 523/JP/2024 was filed by the assessee challenging order dated 07.03.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, as thereby appeal filed by 2 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO the assessee challenging levy of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by the Assessing Officer on 09.02.2022, u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, was dismissed. The assessee having failed to comply with notices dated 31.05.2019, 03.07.2019 and 09.05.2019, which were issued to him u/s 142(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated. These were followed by show cause notice date u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Act, but despite services of the said show cause notices, the assessee did not appear before Assessing Officer. The matter was submitted/forwarded to the verification unit on 08.08.2021. The verification unit on it own also got show cause notice served on the assessee on 26.08.2021 by speed post, but the assessee failed to respond. Still another show cause notice dated 28.01.2022 was issued, but the assessee failed to respond the same. That is how, penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act came to be passed on 09.02.2022. 3. Vide order dated 01.08.2024 which is sought to be rectified, this Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, while observing in the manner as under: 3 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO “24. As is available from the assessment order, notices dated 29.03.2019 under section 148 of the Act; notice dated 31.5.2019 under section 142(1) of the Act accompanied by a questionarrie; notices dated 3.7.2019 and 5.9.2019 u/s 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, but, as further observed, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any reply to the said notices. In the affidavit, the assessee has testified about his address, place of residence or stay in the years 2005 and 2006. He has furnished copies of documents pertaining to said years. Notices pertain to the year 2019. Therefore, the affidavit and the copies of documents pertaining to the year 2005 and year 2006 do not help the assessee to justify his non appearance before, or non compliance of the notices issued by, the Assessing Officer. He has also placed on record copies of two documents said to have been issued in November and December, 2021, to show that at that time he was residing in Dehradun. Since the notices were issued by the Assessing Officer in the year 2019, even the documents as to his residence in the year 2021 do not help the assessee to justify his non appearance before, or non compliance of the notices issued by, the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, no justification was put forth before Learned CIT(A) for non compliance with the abovesaid notices issued by the Assessing Officer. In the given situation, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned AR that the assessee was not served with any of these notices, or that he had sufficient reason for non compliance with the said notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Having regard to the provisions of section 271(1)(b) and that the assessee failed to comply with notices issued even under section 142(1) of the Act, no ground for any leniency on the amount of penalty is made out. Result 25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal No. 523/2023 is without any merit. Same is hereby dismissed.” 4 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO 4. The only ground pressed by Ld. Counsel for the applicant to seek rectification of the order passed by Appellate Tribunal is that during the relevant period i.e. 31.05.2019 to 20.09.2019, the applicant was not residing at the given address i.e. 315, DDA Flats, PKT 2nd, Dwarkadhis Apptt., Sector-12, New Delhi. At the same time, Ld. Counsel has submitted that during the said period i.e. from 31.05.2019 to 20.09.2019, he was residing at Vikash Nagar, Plot No. 1, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, but his documents furnished in the course of arguments on the appeal, in support of his residence in Jaipur, were not considered by the Appellate Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. 5. As noticed above, relevant notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) were dated 31.05.2019, 03.07.2019 and 05.09.2019. Record reveals that in the course of argument on the appeal in ITA No. 523/JP/2024 with his affidavit dated 01.08.2024, the applicant submitted copy of driving license as Annexure-3. This document i.e. copy of driving licence bears date of issuance as 09.11.2005 and as on the said date, depicted the address of the applicant as “Beekau Bhardwaj, C/o Manne Lal, House no. 1, Lane no. 01, Doon Divine Society, Dhorand Khas, Sahstradhara, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001.. 5 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO 6. In his affidavit, the applicant nowhere specified as to since when he started residing in the area on Vikash Nagar, Plot No. 01 near Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur. We may mention here that all the documents submitted by the applicant were duly considered while disposing of the appeal and ultimately, we held that there was no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that he was not served with any of the notices or that he had sufficient reason for non-compliance with the said notices. 7. In the course of arguments on appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, the assessee had placed on record copies of certain documents pertaining to the year 2005, 2006 and 2021, in proof of factum of his residence during said period, but he had not produced any document pertaining to the relevant period of the year 2019 i.e. when the 3 notices under section 142(1) were issued and served upon him. During arguments on this application seeking rectification of order, counsel for the applicant has submitted some copies which are actually additional documents, for the first time. These additional documents were not produced by the appellant earlier before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC or before us. It is not the case of the 6 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO applicant that these documents were earlier not available with him or that he could not produce the same for such and such reason. 8. In the given situation, it cannot be said that this is a case of any mistake apparent on record calling for rectification of the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal, when the order was passed after taking into consideration entire material that was made available to us in the course of arguments on appeal-ITA No.523/JPR/2024. 9. As a last resort, counsel for the applicant has submitted that a lenient view may be taken having regard to the fact that the applicant failed to furnish return of income only for the year under consideration, despite notices. 10. Section 271 of the Act empowers the Income Tax Authorities specified therein to levy penalty. Clause (b) of section (1) of section 271 talks about failure of the concerned person to comply with certain notices including a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Act. Sub- section (ii) of section 271 prescribes penalty of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-in the cases referred to in clause (b) for each such failure. Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Act provides for issuance and service of a notice requiring a person, on a date to be therein 7 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO specified to furnish a return of his income where time allowed under sub- section (1) of section 139 for furnishing of return has expired. 11. Admittedly, despite notices, the assessee failed to comply with the directions contained in the notices. But, taking into consideration that this is the only default on the part of the assessee in non filing of return, even on having been called upon by the department to do so, we deem it a fit case to reduce the amount of penalty to Rs.10,000/-. We order accordingly. Result 12. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, the application is disposed of and the applicant-appellant is directed to deposit amount of penalty of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand rupees only) in lieu of Rs.30,000/-. File of application and the summoned record be consigned to the record room. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18/02/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS 8 MA No. 36/JP/2024 Shri Beekau Bhardwaj vs ITO vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Beekau Bhardwaj, New Delhi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 36/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "