Nashik Industrial Park Pvt.Ltd, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik

ITA 1067/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5630 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ प ु णे म ें । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1067/PUN/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nashik Industrial Park Pvt. Ltd., Suyojit Heights, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422003 PAN : AABCN2936J .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Nashik ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07-12-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 23-12-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28-03-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent 2 ITA No.1067/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 3. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of builders, land developers, contractors, etc. The assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.39,510/- and under scrutiny the AO completed the assessment. During scrutiny proceedings, we note that the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act as under : Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of Hearing Remarks 1 04-08-2014 19-08-2014 File adjournment letter on 20-08-2014. 2 22-08-2014 19-09-2014 Letter filed seeking adjournment. 3 03-11-2014 17-11-2014 No response. 4 02-12-2014 09-12-2014 Return submissions filed with no books of account/records produced. 5 10-12-2014 17-12-2014 No records produced. 5. Having satisfied that no compliances were forthcoming for the assessee in respect of questionnaire issued vide notice dated 04-08-2014 and again on 02-12-2014 the AO show caused the assessee vide notice dated 31-12-2014 u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act why penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed. The assessee through its written 3 ITA No.1067/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 submissions stated that the concerned Accountant handling the case was on leave and the information/documents sought by the Revenue Department were only available with him and sought adjournment. It was also contended that the assessee made substantial compliance to the notice dated 02-12-2014 and requested to drop the penalty proceedings. We note that the AO vide its first notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act sought compliance to the questionnaire issued therein. The assessee sought adjournment. Thereafter, the AO kept on issuing notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act requested the assessee to produce the books of account, documents/expenditure, vouchers, etc. and also reminded that on failure to compliance notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is liable to be imposed, but, however, as we note from the penalty order till the date of penalty order the assessee did not produce any records, documents, vouchers or books of account as sought by the AO. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessee is liable to pay the penalty as imposed by the AO for not complying statutory notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. 6. Coming to the CIT(A) order, the notices were issued in the First Appellate proceedings as under : Sr. No. Date of Notice Date of Hearing Remarks 1 06-01-2017 07-02-2017 No response 2 10-08-2017 24-08-2017 No response 3 06-02-2018 19-02-2018 No response 4 22-02-2018 01-03-2018 No response 5 14-03-2018 21-03-2018 No response 4 ITA No.1067/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 7. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A) issued notices in response to the memo of appeal under Form No. 35 but no response or appearance put in by the assessee. It is also noted from the impugned order that the CIT(A) specifically mentioned no attendances is not necessary and requested the assessee to file written submissions. In spite of which the assessee failed to file any response nor putting appearances for prosecuting grounds forming part of Form No. 35. We find that the CIT(A) afforded many opportunities to the assessee to prosecute the appeal but till the date of impugned order no compliances were made by the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 8. Before us as there was no material supporting the ground raised by the assessee. We note that the assessee filed this appeal in the year 2018 and Registry of ITAT, Pune Benches issued notice dated 29-09-2021 intimating that the date of hearing on 27-10-2021 and there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani submits that the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act is a statutory notice issued in scrutiny proceedings. The AO along with that notice also issued questionnaire requesting the assessee to comply with the said questionnaire. The AO discussed the issue in detailed and found satisfied that no compliance forthcoming from the assessee and issued notice u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act to which also the assessee did not submit the cause for non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also given ample opportunities to the assessee and referred to Page No. 4 of the impugned order. By referring to Para No. 3.2 of the impugned order he 5 ITA No.1067/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 vehemently argued that the assessee failed to give reasons for non- compliance of statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and also failed to prosecute grounds of appeal raised in the First Appellate proceedings. He submits that the assessee has no respect to the proceedings under Income Tax Act and the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Further, before this Tribunal also having filed the appeal under Form No. 36 no compliance were made so far challenging the action of CIT(A) and prayed to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. 9. Having heard ld. DR and on perusal of the material evidence on record, we note that as rightly pointed by the ld. DR under scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO is required to issue notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire seeking information regarding the subjects notified under scrutiny. The assessee has to comply the same, failing with the AO has power to exercise its jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income etc. In the present case, the AO initiated proceedings under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act for failure to comply with a notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. As discussed above and also born out from the orders of both the authorities below, we note that till the disposal of appeal by the CIT(A) the assessee failed to furnish required evidences, information, documents, vouchers, etc. before the authorities below and in penalty proceedings no reasonable cause was shown for non-compliance of notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, we find support in the arguments of the ld. DR that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and 6 ITA No.1067/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 circumstances of the case and submissions of ld. DR and also discussion made in above by us, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Accordingly, the sole ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 rd December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩ ु णे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 23 rd December, 2021. RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune 4. The D.G.I.T. (Inv.), Pune 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, ऩ ु णे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩ ु णे / ITAT, Pune