V.S.J MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM V. DCIT , CIRCLE - 1 , SALEM

ITA 574/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. V.S.J. Marketing Private Limited, which appealed against a penalty imposed for concealing income details for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's non-cooperation during the assessment and penalty proceedings, including failure to file a return of income and respond to notices. The Tribunal referenced similar cases and legal provisions, concluding that the penalty was justified due to willful concealment of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134116 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Moola Padmaja vs. ACIT, Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, Babuji Jacob vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Peak credit
• Section: 271(1)(c); 144; 264

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद( के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.574/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / As sessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. V.S.J. Marketing Private Limited 13/145, Ganapathy Nagar, Ganapathypalayam, Salem-636 030. बनाम / V s . DCIT Circle-1, Salem. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. A AC C V- 5410 - A (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.AR थ कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT)-Ld.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 01-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.140.86 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16-06-2022 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 28-06-2019. In the penalty order, the penalty has been levied on the allegation that the assessee concealed particulars of its 2 ITA No.574/Chny/2022 income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, drew our attention to legal ground no.3 and submitted that in the absence of specific charge, no penalty could be levied. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this bench, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee did not file return of income and it was clear cut case of concealment of income. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Moola Padmaja vs. ACIT (ITA No.234/Hyd/2022 dated 22.02.2023 which has confirmed the penalty under similar circumstances. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Proceedings before lower authorities 3.1 The assessee was assessed on best judgment basis u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.08.2018. The assessee was stated to be defunct company at the time of reopening of assessment. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee did not file any return of income. The Ld. AO made best judgement assessment and estimated income of Rs.469.63 Lacs on the basis of peak credit in the bank accounts. In the assessment order, the penalty was levied by Ld. AO by stating that ‘Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately’. In the meanwhile, the assessee preferred petition u/s 264 against quantum addition which got rejected. 3.2 Subsequently, a notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 28.12.2018 wherein Ld. AO alleged as under: - 3 ITA No.574/Chny/2022 “**have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” However, the assessee remained unresponsive and did not attend penalty proceedings. Left with no option, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty by observing that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income and the mere act of non-cooperation in all the proceedings, clearly tantamount to willful concealment of income. 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed the penalty on the ground that the notice was vague and an invalid notice. The Ld. CIT(A), applying the ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (403 ITR 407) in preference to the decision in Babuji Jacob (430 lTR 259), confirmed the impugned penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the fact, it emerges that the assessee has remained non- cooperative during assessment proceedings as well as during penalty proceeding. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis and the same has attained finality by way of rejection of assessee’s application u/s 264. The assessee did not file any return of income for this year. During penalty proceedings also, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to defend the levy of penalty. However, the assessee did not bother to reply to the same and failed to make any submissions. Before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us, the plea raised by the assessee is that the show cause notice was vague and an invalid notice. Thus the assessee is taking shelter on the same notice which he has not even bothered to respond during penalty proceedings. In our 4 ITA No.574/Chny/2022 considered opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the assessee in such a case. The assessee has remained non-cooperative in all the proceedings. The cited case law of Hyderabad Tribunal supports the case of the revenue wherein similar fact exists. The bench, in para-23 of the order, considered Explanation-3 to Sec.271(1)(c) which provide that if a person fails to furnish return of income then the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income. Accordingly it was held that it was clear case of concealment of income and penalty was justified. Even on merits, the assessee has no case since the assessment has attained finality confirming the quantum addition as made by Ld. AO. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 09 th August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा ! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 09-08-2023 DS आदेशकीAितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF