MR.KANTILAL JAIN, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2238/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7126 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NON AUTHORISED PERSON
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2238 /MUM./2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 12 ) SHRI KANTILAL JAIN 13/105, RATANSADAN 5 TH KUMBHARWADA 2 ND PATHAN STREET MUMBAI 400 004 PAN ADCPJ9751E .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ASS ESSEE BY : NON AUTHORISED PERSON DATE OF HEARING 3 0 .0 4 .2019 DATE OF ORDER 3 0 .04.2019 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 26 TH DECEMBER 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 53, MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12. 2 . GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2 SHRI KANTILAL JAIN 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH IS MOST UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 3 . IN THIS CASE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO ` 10,000, WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICE S OF HEARING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES SENT FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN RESPOND THE TO THE PENALTY NOTICE IN THIS REGARD. 4 . UPON THE LEVY OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT DESPITE SEVERAL NO TICES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND. HENCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONABLE CAUSE, NON COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICES LEADS TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE SAME. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 2 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. DESPITE NOTICE, NONE APPEARED . IT IS NOTED THAT EARLIER ALSO THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL. AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER HAS BEEN GIVEN TODAY ALSO. BUT IN THE FACTS OF CONTINUOUS NON COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE BENCH. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE 3 SHRI KANTILAL JAIN NOTE THAT IN THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN L E TTER CONTEMPT FOR THE STATUTORY NOTICES. THIS HAS GONE UP WITH THE LEVEL OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUOUSLY NOT RESPONDED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2019 SD/ - RAVISH SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30.04.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI