Sri Sabella Srinivasa Reddy, Gollala Mamidada, E.G.Dt. V. The DCIT Cent Cir Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry

ITA 219/VIZ/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56764 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TH L PETER
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.217 TO 223 OF 11 S.S. REDDY, GOLLALA MAMIDA DA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 217 TO 223 /VIZAG/ 20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY SABELLA SRINIVASA REDDY GOLLALA MAMIDADA, E.G.DIST VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.BHSPS 9986H APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TH.L. PETER, CIT(DR) ORDER PER BENCH:- THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS AN `ACT) BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2007-08 ON COMMON GROUND THAT THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD IN THI S REGARD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND LE ASE OF RICE MILL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENT IAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.6.2006. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME BU T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND THE SAME. EVEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPON D THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) DATED 7.7.2008 AND SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO INITIATED AND AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANC E TO THE PENALTY NOTICE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIE D THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- EACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2007-08. ITA NOS.217 TO 223 OF 11 S.S. REDDY, GOLLALA MAMIDA DA 2 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE EXPLANATION. T HE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS FINALLY DISPOSED THE APPEAL E X-PARTE BY DISMISSING THE SAME. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT T HAT THE APPELLANT IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE LEVY O F PENALTY. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 20.1.2010. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. CASES WERE RE -FIXED ON 3.2.2010. A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT STATING THAT THE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AT RAJAHMUNDR Y. VIDE LETTER DATED 17.2.2010 THE APPELLANT WAS INFORMED T HAT THE APPEALS ARE RELATED TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B ) WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUANTUM APPEALS. THE APPELL ANT WAS REQUESTED TO APPEAR AND EXPLAIN THE CASES OR SEND T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERIT. SUBSEQUENTL Y THE APPEALS WERE RE-FIXED ON 16.11.2010 BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLI ANCE. HOWEVER A LETTER WAS RECEIVED ON 18.11.2011 WHEREIN THERE WAS REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING ON THE GROUN D THAT ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 TO 2007-08 W ERE SET ASIDE BY ITAT. LATER THE APPEALS WERE RE-FIXED ON 29.11. 2010 AND 11.2.2011 BUT ON SOME PRETEXT OR THE OTHER THE APPE LLANT SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. FROM THE FACT ENUMERATED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS . THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE PENDING IS NOT RELEVANT SINCE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) IS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSMENT OR APPEALS CONNECTED WITH THE QUANTUM AS SESSMENT ORDER. AS EVIDENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, THERE WA S TOTAL NON- COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY TO THE NOTICES IN SPITE OF INT IMATING THAT THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 271(1)(B) IS NOT CORRELATED TO TH E ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FO R NON-COMPLIANCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, I FIND NO REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OT HER WORDS, THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR ALL THE SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 001-02 TO 2007- 08 ARE CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2007-08 ARE DISMISSED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL WITH TH E SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A DEFAULT OF NON-APPEARA NCE ONLY AT ONCE, SO ITA NOS.217 TO 223 OF 11 S.S. REDDY, GOLLALA MAMIDA DA 3 THAT PENALTY CAN ONLY BE LEVIED UP TO RS.10,000/- O NLY AND NOT IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT FOR ONE DEFAULT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, AT THE MOST PENALTY CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY IN ONE CASE AND IN REST OF THE CASES , IT SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS CONTENDED THA T ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE NOT ONLY WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WITH THE CIT(A) ALSO. BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE HAS FILED THE APPEALS BUT DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, NO RELAXATION CAN BE GIVEN TO HIM. MOREOVER, THE MINIMUM PENALTY FOR A DEFAULT IS ONLY RS.10,000/- IN ONE CASE. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS R IGHTLY LEVIED THE SAID PENALTY IN EACH CASE. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT ASSESSES REMAINED NON-COOPERATI VE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO. THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) FOR HEARING WERE ALSO NOT RESPONDED BY T HE ASSESSEE NOR DID HE APPEAR ON THE DATE FIXED AND CIT(A) WAS FORCED TO D ECIDE THE APPEAL EX- PARTE. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LENIENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE DEF AULT WAS ONLY ONE BUT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ALLOW US TO BE LIB ERAL WITH HIM. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, MINIMUM PEN ALTY OF RS.10,000/- IS TO BE LEVIED IN A CASE AND NOT FOR THE WHOLE DAY. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE ACCORDINGLY CONFI RM THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.8.2011 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 4 TH AUGUST, 2011 ITA NOS.217 TO 223 OF 11 S.S. REDDY, GOLLALA MAMIDA DA 4 COPY TO 1 SABBELLA SRINIVASA REDDY ALIAS CHANTI BABU, L.N. PU RAM, GOLLALAMAMIDADA, E.G. DIST. 2 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CI T, HYDERABAD 4 THE CIT (A) - I, HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM