Tilak Raj Sharma, Kanpur V. CIT (A), New Delhi

ITA 1511/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3757 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND SENIOR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1511/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-01) SHRI TILAK RAJ SHARMA, VS. ITO, WARD 26 (1), 3/47, VISHNUPURI, NEW DELHI. KANPUR. (PAN : ACJPS2525B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 29.01.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE GROUND OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER : (1) THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(B) IS WITHOUT VALID JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (2) THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL HAS HIMSELF ILLEGALLY TAKEN TWO STANCE, ONE WHILE DECID ING ON THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 148/147 READ WIT H SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER DO NOT HAVE VALID JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE AND SECON DLY WHILE DEALING WITH THE MATTER OF PENALTY, TREATING THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DO HAVE THE JURISDICTION. ITA NO.1511/DEL/2010 2 (3) THAT ANY OTHER GROUND MAY PLEASE BE ADDED IN GR OUND OF APPEAL WHICH HONORABLE TRIBUNAL THINKS FIT TO BE AD DED. (4) THAT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS ILLEGAL, CON TRARY TO FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (5) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 2. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER HEARING THE REVENUE AND GOING THROUGH THE CASE RECORD AVAILABLE ON THE FILE, THIS APPEAL IS DECIDED. 3. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.10,000/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SH OW THAT A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.3.2007. T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY THIS NOTICE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 18.6.2007, 13.7.2007 AND 18.8.2007. ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT COMPLY WITH THESE NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I SSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 21.12.2007. ASSESSING OFFICER A GAIN GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BEING HEARD ON 11.4.2008. THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES I SSUED AND THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THE FACTS SHOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING CONTR ARY WHICH SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(B), THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED OR SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SUBMIT FOR HIS CONDUCT REGA RDING NON-COMPLIANCE OF ITA NO.1511/DEL/2010 3 THE NOTICES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SOME COMPULSION OR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE STA TUTORY NOTICES INCLUDING SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES FOR LEVYING THE PENALT Y. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICES AND ALSO FURNISHING A NY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH NON-COMPLIANCE WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF RS.10,000/-. NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ON THIS COUNT ALSO, THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSE D. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 7 TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : THE 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009 TS COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT. ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI.