Shri Vijay Sharma, Lakhimpur-Kheri V. Addl. Commissioner of I. Tax, Range, Sitapur

ITA 329/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100391 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.329/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 01 SHRI VIJAY SHARMA , C/O SAGAR SADAN, KHUTAR ROAD, GOLA, LAKHIMPUR KHERI. PAN:BQNPS1509J VS. ITO, WARD II, LAKHIMPUR KHERI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 1 9 /08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /09/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) BAREILLY DATED 08.02.2013 FOR A.Y. 2000 01. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING OF PENALTY OF RS. 70,000/ - IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271 D OF I T ACT. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND ON EACH OCCASION, SHRI RAJENDRA YADAV, ADVOCATE AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON ONE PLEA OR OTHER AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. LAST SUCH ADJOURNMENT WAS ON 14.08.2015 ADJOURNED TO 19.08.2015. ON THIS DATE, I.E. 19.08.2015, NONE APPEARED AND THERE IS NO REQUES T FOR ADJOURNMENT. HENCE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE 2 ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CASH LOAN DURING THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS. 70,000/ - ON 07.01.2000 AND AS PER THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDER OF CIT (A), NO EXPLANATION COULD BE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PENALTY U/S 271 D IS NOT LEVIABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 /09/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR