Deepak Hari Kothari, Latur V. Joint Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 32/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2312 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 32 /PUN/201 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 1 - 12 DEEPAK HARI KOTHARI, LAXMI 01, SARASWATI COLONY, OLD AUSA ROAD, LATUR 413531 PAN : NSKDO2544D ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. J OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS , NASHIK / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 - 03 - 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 0 3 - 20 20 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09 - 10 - 2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, AURANGABAD [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 , WHEREIN, HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 272A(2)(K) R.W.S. 200(3) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 32/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. THIS APPEAL WAS F ILED WITH A DELAY OF 355 DAYS. NO APPLICATION CITING REASON S WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 355 DAYS ARE NOT CONDONED. 3. WE FIND NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE CALLED ABSENT AND SET EX - PARTE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR LD. DR AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON HAND ON MERITS BASING ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. THE SOLE GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S. 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5 . DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE P RESCRIBED PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER THE ACT DID NOT PREPARE AND DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, A QUARTERLY STATEMENT U/S. 200(3) WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME. A NOTICE U/S. 272(2)(K) R.W.S. 274 OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE DEDUCTOR ON 31 - 12 - 2012 FOR PERIODICITY Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 IN FORM NO. 26Q . WE FIND THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE ABOVE SAID NOTICES BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR NOT PREPARING AND DELIVERING QUARTER LY STATEMENT AS REQUIRED U/S. 200(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 46,924/ - AGAINST DEFAULT FOR NOT PREPARING AND DELIVERING STATEMENT IN ITS ORDER AT PARA 5. 6. AS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF JCIT, TDS RANGE, NASHIK THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 3 ITA NO. 32/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011 - 12 7. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ON 05 - 01 - 2017 AND THIS TRIBUNAL ISSUED FOUR NOTICES DATED 28 - 09 - 2018, 11 - 06 - 2019, 03 - 10 - 2019 AND 04 - 12 - 2019 INTIMATING THE ASSESSEE THE DATES OF FIXING OF HEARING OF APPEAL ON 06 - 11 - 2018, 24 - 07 - 2019, 19 - 11 - 2019 AND 16 - 12 - 2019, RESPECTIVELY THROUGH RPAD ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 BUT HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCKET FILE WE FIND THE ASSESSEE REMAINE D ABSENT ON ALL THE ABOVE DATES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN SPITE OF HAVING KNOWLEDGE THE FIXING OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE TDS AND DEPOSITED THE SAME BELATEDLY AND NO REASONS WHATSOEVER GIVEN FOR SUCH DELAY IN THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN SUCH DELAY BY RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF FIXING OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY S TEPS TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE TREAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN DEPOSITING AND FILING QUARTERLY STATEMENTS AS REQUIRED U/S. 200(3) OF THE ACT AND IN OUR OPINION THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A O AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD. THUS, ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH MARCH, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R / PUNE; / DATED : 19 TH MARCH, 2020 RK 4 ITA NO. 32/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011 - 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) 1 , AURANGABAD 4. THE CIT (TDS), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRU E COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE