Shri Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani, Rajkot V. The ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh, Junagadh

ITA 316/RJT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5751 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Non compliance; Condonation of delay
• Section: 148; 144; 250; 274; 139(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.316/RJT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani, 7, Kailash Vasan Bhandar, Mangrod Road, Patel Samaj, Rajkot Vs. The ITO, Ward-1 Junagadh èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BSQPK1924G (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by : None राजèवकȧओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement :19/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi, (in short ‘the NFAC, Delhi’), dated 29.07.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). I.T.A No. 316/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Shri Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani vs. ITO 2 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The Ld. CVT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming levied penalty U/s. 274 r.w.s. 271F of Rs. 5000/. The penalty needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law confirming levied penalty U/s. 274 r.w.s. 27IF of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of amount treated as income without proper verification and settled taw. The penalty needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming levied penalty U/s. 274 r.w.s. 27IF of Rs. 5,000/- giving inadequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty levied without bringing any cogent material justifying of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 5. No specific charge has been levied white initiating and completing penalty proceedings. The penalty needs cancellation. 6. Penalty is levied on a different, charge for which no specific is issued. The penalty needs cancellation. 7. The penalty order being bad in law needs cancellation. 8. Without prejudice the penalty order having been passed beyond limitation prescribed needs cancellation. 9. Without prejudice no legal notice has been relating to penalty levied. The penalty needs deletion. 10. Without prejudice without awaiting appeal decision relating to quantum matter penalty has levied. The penalty cancellation. I.T.A No. 316/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Shri Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani vs. ITO 3 11. Taking into considering the position, statutory aspects and facts of the case no penalty ought have been confirmed. The same deserves cancellation. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend/ or substitute any or all grounds of before the actual hearing take place.” 3. At the outset, it is noted that the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal late by 87 days for A.Y. 2011-12. That application for donation of delay is moved as follows:- Subject: Condonation of delay “1. An appeal for A.Y 2011-12 in respect of order passed u/s 271F has been filed late. Reason for delay are adequate and bearing reasonable cause also for delay. The details thereof with evidences will be furnished at the time of hearing of appeal for condonation of delay or as and when required, for immediately.” Neither the assessee has attended the proceedings nor any A.R. of the assessee appeared on the date of hearing. 4. The Sr. D.R. of the Revenue appeared and submitted the written submission as follows:- “Sub: Written Submission in the case of Mukeshbhal Jasmatbhai Kumbhani, (ITA/316/RJT/2022) for AY 2011-12-reg. DOH: 19/06/2024 Kindly refer to the above 2. The above referred appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 22/04/2019. In this case, the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of I.T.A No. 316/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Shri Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani vs. ITO 4 the Income Tax Act was completed, determining total income at Rs.32,07,000/- During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the asssessee neither filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 within time specified u/s 139(1) or by the provisions to that sub section nor in response to u/s 148 of the IT Act. Therefore, as per provisions u/s 271F of the IT Act, assessee was liable to penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for failure to furnish the return before the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee, during penalty proceedings, did not file any satisfactory explanation before Assessing Officer as to why penalty should not be levied. Consequently, penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of IT Act was levied vide the above referred order dated 22/04/2019. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who passed an order u/s 250 of the IT Act dated 29/07/2022 dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant and upholding penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In his Order, the Ld. CIT (A) has noted the constant non compliance by the appellant to file written submission or any documents in support of the grounds raised, despite being given six opportunities by the Ld. CIT (A). 4. Even before your honours, the assessee has availed 13 adjournments and no explanation as to why the return could not be filed before the end of the relevant assessment year has been placed on record. In view of the above facts & circumstances, it is requested that the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed.” 5. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the documents on record. We have noted that thirteen times the case was fixed for hearing, eight times adjournment application was moved and five times nobody appeared for representing the case. The penalty was levied for failure to file the return. It was further observed by the ld. CIT(A) that nine times hearing was fixed but nobody has filed any written submission nor joined the appellate proceedings. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A No. 316/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Shri Mukeshbhai Jasmatbhai Kumbhani vs. ITO 5 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-07-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 19/07/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot