Raghav Aditya Chits P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-13, New Delh

ITA 3254/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4083 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3254/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raghav Aditya Chits P. Ltd., C/o-P.N. Chawla, Advocate, B-V, Vandhana -11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-13, New Delhi PAN :AADCR5782N (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 21.02.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi, confirming penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13. Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 22.04.2022 2 ITA No. 3254/Del/2018 AY : 2012-13 2. Before we proceed to deal with issue raised in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, when the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. On perusal of record it is noticed, on three earlier occasions when the appeal came up for hearing, each time the assessee sought adjournment. It is also observed, at no stage of the proceeding before the departmental authorities, the assessee appeared to represent its case. Therefore, in our opinion, no useful purpose is going to be served in further adjourning the matter. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on materials on record. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident company. As could be seen from the facts on record, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income declaring nil income. Whereas, the Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 144 of the Act to the best of his judgment by determining the total income of Rs.14,44,76,764/-. Since, the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(b) 3 ITA No. 3254/Del/2018 AY : 2012-13 of the Act. In response to the show-cause notice issued in course of penalty proceeding, the assessee neither appeared, nor filed any explanation. Due to non-compliance with the show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass order on 29.09.2015 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Assessee’s appeal against aforesaid penalty order was also decided ex-parte confirming the penalty imposed. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. The facts on record clearly reveal that in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee did not comply with any of the notices issued under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. For this reason alone, the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act to the best of judgment of the Assessing Officer. Even, in course of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, the assessee neither appeared, nor filed any explanation to explain the reason for non-compliance with the statutory notices issued in course of assessment proceeding. Even, before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee did not appear. As a result of which, the appeal was decided ex-parte. The position did not improve even before us. 4 ITA No. 3254/Del/2018 AY : 2012-13 Thus, the assessee has remained absent consistently at all stages of the proceeding, starting from Assessing Officer till the Tribunal. Therefore, the ingredients of section 271(1)(b) of the Act are clearly attracted as the assessee has not come forward to prove his bona fide as regards the non-compliance with the statutory notices before us, as well. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd April, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22 nd April, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi