Vikas, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 5, Rohtak

ITA 1678/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0737 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.447/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vikas C/o Umang Sahai Aggarwal Advocate 505, Maitri Apartment, Opp. Metro Pillar 411, Sector-09, Rohini New Delhi PAN No.AIDPV2988H Vs ITO Ward-5 Rohtak (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant None Respondent Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 31/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31/08/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Rohtak dated 30.07.2020 for A.Y.2011-12. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order framed u/s. 144 of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.12.60 lacs. Since the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued by the AO the AO proceeded by levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. 4. Though the assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the CIT(A) but did not attend the appellate proceedings and the CIT(A) after considering the facts on record confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO. 5. Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite repetitive notices we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length who placed strong reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have carefully perused the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority. The undisputed fact is that the assessment order was framed exparte u/s. 144 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority were also not attended and the CIT(A)was 3 left with no choice but to decide the appeal exparte. 7. Even before us the assessee neither appeared in person nor through any authorised representative. This conduct of the assessee clearly show that he is not only negligent but also do not have any respect to the judicial proceedings, therefore, we decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Decision announced in the open court on 31.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- .08.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 Date of dictation 31.08.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 31.08.2022 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other member 31.08.2022 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 31.08.2022 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement 31.08.2022 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 31.08.2022 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 31.08.2022 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 31.08.2022 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order