Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Aurangabad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -1, Aurangabad

ITA 1354/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1858 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Plot No.E-10, MIDC Area, Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. PAN : AKAPM0524B Vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the respective orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’ for short] confirming the levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in all these appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 04.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 04.01.2022 ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 2 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 are stated herein. ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 : 4. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer noticed that the tax due on the returned income had not been paid. Accordingly, the appellant was show caused vide notice dated 04.01.2016, however, despite several opportunities granted to the appellant, the appellant had not filed any explanation before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Act for non-payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income and levied penalty of Rs.2,97,250/- vide order dated 29.06.2016. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), despite several opportunities granted to the appellant, the appellant could not offer any explanation as to how he was prevented from paying the self-assessment tax due on the returned income. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was constrained to dispose of the appeal on merits confirming the levy of penalty as there is no ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 3 material on record indicating as to how the appellant was prevented from the payment of self-assessment tax due on the returned income. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 7. There is a delay in filing the above captioned six appeals by 68 days and the assessee had filed an affidavit for condoning the delay stating that the delay occurred on account of wrong advice given by the consultant who advised to prosecute the remedy under the provisions of section 154 of the Act whereas another consultant had advised for filing the appeals, in the process the delay had occurred. The above averments made in the affidavit were not controverted by the ld. Sr. DR. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause from filing the appeals within the time. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 68 days in filing the appeals. 8. Even before us, despite several notices of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. On careful perusal of the grounds of appeal raised before us, we find that there is no ground pleading the difficulty or reasonable cause for non-payment of self- assessment tax due on the returned income. In the circumstances, ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 4 we have no option, but to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 stands dismissed. ITA Nos.1350 to 1354/PUN/2018 : 10. Since the facts and issues involved in all the above six appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1349/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the rest of five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1350 to 1354/PUN/2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14. Thus, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1350 to 1354/PUN/2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14 are dismissed. 11. Resultantly, all the above six appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 04 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 04 th January, 2022. Sujeet ITA Nos.1349 to 1354/PUN/2018 5 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.