Rajesh Kumar, Ghaziabad V. ACIT Circle 56(1), New Delhi

ITA 2157/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Kumar, the appellant, who contested a penalty imposed by the A.O. following an ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, which significantly increased his declared income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent absence during various proceedings and his failure to furnish any details or submissions to counter the allegations of large cash deposits, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108564 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 144; 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 2157/Del/2019 Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2157/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Rajesh Kumar A-501, Nirla Eden Park, Ahinsa Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh PAN: AHPPK1435K ( APPELLANT ) Vs. ACIT Circle 56(1) New Delhi ( RESPONDENT ) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 07/01/2019 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38 (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) Delhi, for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- Assessee by : None Department by: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2023 2 ITA No. 2157/Del/2019 Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT “That the order in bad in law and facts of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal.” 3. None appeared for the assessee. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the Department has served the notice to the Assess see and filed a report dated 26/09/2022 providing the proof of service of notice to the Assessee. It is found from the order sheet that the assessee remained absent for five consecutive hearing dates. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to hear the Ld. Departmental Representative, verify the material on record and decide the matter. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 5,51,100/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the income Tax Act (‘Act’ for short) later assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act at an income of Rs. 32,16,100/- as against the returned income of Rs. 5,51,100/-. Pursuant to the assessment order, a penalty order came to be passed on 30/09/2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30/09/2015, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/01/2019 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee. 5. As against the order of the CIT(A) dated 07/01/2019, the assessee preferred the present appeal on the ground mentioned above. 3 ITA No. 2157/Del/2019 Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that though the several opportunities have been given to the assessee by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings the assessee chose not to appear. The Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities submitted that the assessee should not be given any lenience who has failed to appear before the Lower authorities and even before the Tribunal, therefore, the Appeal of the Assessee liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard the parties, perused the material. The assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 since the assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceeding and an addition of Rs. 26,65,000/- was made u/s 69 of the Act. Further the assessee had failed to appear during the penalty proceedings, therefore, the impugned order of penalty came to be passed against the assessee. Even before the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to appear in spite of several opportunities given to the assessee. Further even before us, either the assessee or the representative of the assessee not appeared and brought anything on record in support of the defense of the Assessee. Further, the assessee has not furnished any details or submissions providing explanation against the allegation of large amount of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee either before the Lower Authorities or before us. We have also gone through the penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O. and found that the assessee has committed violation of statutory mandate placed upon him and the Assessee failed to offer any explanation with regard to 4 ITA No. 2157/Del/2019 Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT addition made in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30/03/2015. Thus, we are of the opinion that the penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O. which was confirmed by the CIT(A) found to be in order. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find no error or infirmity in the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A) accordingly, we find no merit in the grounds of Appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 23/06/2023 . Sd/- Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23/06/2023 *R.N, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to :- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 2157/Del/2019 Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT