Rishi Prakash , Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 40(4), New Delhi

ITA 5678/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7657 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N C SWAIN
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICAIL MEMBER ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Sh Rishi Prakash 9, Yadav Nagar, Near Samaipur Badli, New Delhi – 110 042. PAN AGVPP6251B [vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 40(4), Civic Centre Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Sh. NC Swain, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the penalty order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi, dated 19.08.2013 in Appeal No.181/12-13, relating to the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under : 2 ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Sh. Rishi Prakash, Delhi. 2.1. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 31.03.2010 declaring income at Rs.3,28,730/-. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served on the assessee by speed post. A detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 20.09.2010 fixing the case for 28.09.2010. However, the assessee did not appear before the A.O. in spite of several notices issued and adjournments granted at the request of Assessee’s Authorised Representative. The A.O. also issued summons to the assessee under section 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 seeking the assessee’s appearance but, on the scheduled date i.e., on 26.12.2011 neither the assessee appeared before the A.O. nor furnished any information. Under these circumstances and in view of non cooperative attitude of the assessee as well as non production of accounts, bills and vouchers, the A.O. passed ex-parte assessment order on 27.12.20211 under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.28,16,47,798/- against the declared income of Rs.3,28,730/-. On the additions of Rs.28,13,14,162/- 3 ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Sh. Rishi Prakash, Delhi. that were made AO imposed penalty of Rs.8,69,66,601/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 19.08.2013 in Appeal No.181/12-13 confirmed the penalty levied by the A.O. by observing that “laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights – the principle embodied in well known dictum “vigilantibus et non dormeientibus jura subveniunt”. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the penalty at para 4 of his order has noted that notice for hearing of the appeal was issued through registered post twice at the address provided by assessee but the same were returned back by the postal authorities. On the merits of levy of penalty he noted that the assessee has not furnished any explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in his return of income for the relevant assessment year. He therefore held that the assessee’s case clearly falls under clause (A) of Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and confirmed the penalty levied by the A.O. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Sh. Rishi Prakash, Delhi. 3. The case file reveals that the appeal was listed for hearing on 29.11.2021, 31.01.2022, 31.03.2022 and 16.06.2022. On all the occasions, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices issued through RPAD nor any application was filed seeking for adjournment. Further, the notice issued by the Registry through RPAD was returned unserved with the postal remarks “Incomplete address”. Assessee has not filed any document informing the change of address. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R. 4. The Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee is having non-cooperative attitude and inspite of numerous opportunities by the lower authorities, the assessee did not appear to substantiate his claim and therefore, the authorities had no option, but, to pass ex-parte order based on the material available on record. He submitted that even before the Tribunal, assessee has chosen not to appear. He therefore submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 5 ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Sh. Rishi Prakash, Delhi. 5. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. At the very outset, we have already dismissed the quantum appeal of the assessee vide order in ITA No.5677/Del/2018 dated 01.08.2022 since he did not appear before the Tribunal in spite of granting several adjournments and notices issued through RPAD. In respect of the present appeal also the assessee did not file a single documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the assessee to controvert the findings of lower authorities, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [N.K. CHOUDHARY] [ANIL CHATURVEDI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi, Dated 13 th September, 2022 VBP/- 6 ITA.No.5678/Del./2018 Sh. Rishi Prakash, Delhi. Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. DR ITAT “SMC” Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi.