Shri Jayantibhai Dayhabhai Patel, Surat V. The ACIT,Circle-8, Surat

ITA 2333/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6002 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 147; 27; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2333/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL B/H. MOTI BAHUCHARJI MANDIR, VED ROAD, SURAT- 395004 APPELLANT VS. THE ACIT, CRICELE-8, SURAT RESPONDENT PAN: BHRPP4527J /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 EMANATES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-V, SURATS ORDER DATED 20.08.2013, PASSE D IN APPEAL NO. CAS/V/46/2012-13, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACT ION IMPOSING PENALTY ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2013 (JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 - OF RS.20,000/- IN ORDER DATED 27.06.2012, IN PROCEE DINGS U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DISCUSSES RELEVANT FACTS, ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCL USION AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPO SED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 142(1) AND SECTION 143(2) NOTIC ES AS UNDER: 4. 'DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT DATED 23.03.2011 WAS ISSUED FOR R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO T HE ABOVE NOTICE ISSUED. NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WERE ISSUED ON 17.06.2011, 30.06.2011, 21.07.2011 & 16.08.2011 CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ATTEND AND FILE THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WERE ISSUED ON 03.11.2011 & 25.11.2011 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND ON 11.11.2011 AND 29.11.2011 RESPECTIVELY AND FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR ATTENDED THE FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER OR SUBMIS SION. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FINALIZED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 O F THE IT ACT ON 20.12.2011 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME RS. 80,60,975/-. PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) WAS ALSO INITIATED. HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED TO FIFE ANY REPLY TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT ON 20.12.2011. ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT FOR TWO DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT FROM TIME TO TIME. IN RESPONSE TO THE PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 09.02.2012 FIL ED ON 10.05.2012 THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL TH E DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE AO IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 20 ,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE TWO DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT.' SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 5. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT ATTENDED AND GAVE VERBAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE WAS HEARD. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED VERBALLY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERGOING LOT OF PR ESSURE DUE TO HIGH DEMANDS ETC. AND THEREFORE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE S. DECISION 6.1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, 'HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL- GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PROVI DED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2013 (JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 - 3 - DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOTICES U /S 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 17.06.2011, 30.06.2011, 21.07.2011 AND 16 .08.2011. BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THEREAFTER, FURTHER NOTICES U/ S 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 03.11.2011 AND 25.11.2011 BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MAD E. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. FURTHER NEITHER HAD T HE APPELLANT ATTENDED NOR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT OR FILED SUBMISSION IN COMPLIANC E TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT. NO REASON IS GIVEN IN THE APP ELLANT'S REPLY FILED AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF NO TICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE CAUSE. THE AFORESAID FACTS PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY DID N OT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF RS. 20,000/- FOR WILLF UL AND DELIBERATE NON COMPLIANCE AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITHOU T ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT HAS PRONOUNCED AS FOLLOWING WHICH IS VERY RELEVANT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE:- 'THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER THE CHARGE OF HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). THE WORDS OF SECTION 27 1(1 )(B) THAT IF THE REVENUE IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS WITHOUT REASONABLE CA USE, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1), HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PENALTY ARE RATHER CRUCIAL, /F WAS OBVIOUS THEREFORE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIR ED TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE. THAT WAS A MATTER WITHIN THE SPECIAL KNOWLED GE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MUST BE ADDED THAT IN THE INSTANT PENALTY PRECEDING AS W ELL THE ASSESSEE TOOK NO STEPS TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ANY REASONABLY CAUSE FO R NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142. DESPITE THE FINDINGS IN T HE ASSESSMENT AND,-HE REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS, ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLI NED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE OR NOT BUT ENTIRE RE CORD SHOWED THAT NO EFFORT WORTH THE NAME WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THA T THERE WAS ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. CIT(A) V/S STANDARD MERCANTILE CO (1986) 160 ITR 61.3 (PAT) HENCE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.20,000/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. SHRI PATEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN INVOKING THE IMPUGNED PENAL PROVISION. WE PROCEED IN THIS BACKDROP TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOWHERE EX PLAINED THE RELEVANT REASONS OF HIS NON APPEARANCE OR NON ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION FRAMED U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011. THE VERY FACTUAL POSITION CONTINUED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS I N THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AGAIN COULD NOT EXPLAIN EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NON ITA NO. 2333/AHD/2013 (JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 - 4 - APPEARANCE TRIGGERING THE PENALTY IN QUESTION. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A)S CONCLUSION EXTR ACTED HEREINABOVE AFFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 05/05/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--, , /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , // , /0