Vinod Mahashukhbhai Thaker, Ahmedabad V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2797/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7033 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPORVA BHARADWAJ
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 2

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2796 AND 2797/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-13 AND 2013-14 VINOD MAHASHUKHBHAI THAKER 308, ISCON MALL ABOVE STAR BAZAR, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : AFLPT 1240 H VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.2(4) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI APPORVA BHARADWAJ, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 08/01/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9 /01/2019 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 28.6.2016 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2007-08 TO 201 3-14. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO ASSESSMEN T YEARS I.E. ASSTT.YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN LEVY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE HAS C OME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPEAL. APPEAL IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013 -14 HAS BEEN STATED TO BE TIME BARRED BY 46 DAYS. A DEFECT MEMO TO THI S EFFECT WAS ISSUED ITA NO.2796 AND 2797/AHD/2016 2 TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED AN D NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING T HE PENALTY HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 4. I HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE PEN ALTY ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE IN THIS RE GARD. I FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF NON COMPLIANCE ARE LISTED IN PA RA-4 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. VIDE PARA-5 THE A.O. HAS DETAILED THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 271(L)(B) WAS ISSUED, WHICH REMAINED U NCOMPLIED WITH. BEFORE THE A.O., THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY REASON FOR NON-IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. I ALSO FIND THAT THE DECISION CITED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISTINGUISH ABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE D ELHI TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IS OF MULTIPLE ISSUE OF 143(2) NOTICES. T HE A.O. IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(B) MAY BE A TTRACTED FOR EACH OF SUCH FAILURE TO COMPLY 142(1) NOTICE. IN MY VIEW, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR EACH OF THE A.Y. FR OM 2007-08 TO 2013-14 OF RS.10,000/- IS SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 5. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLA USIBLE EXPLANATION FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. HENCE, PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- HAS RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED AND HAS RIG HTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS. THUS, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH JANUARY, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/01/2019