SHRI ANIL BANSAL, Bhopal V. THE DCIT CENTRAL, Bhopal

ITA 59/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6209 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 273B; 142(1); 153A; 27; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.38 TO 44/IND/2016 A.Y. : 2006-07 TO 2012-13 BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK, DY. CIT,(CENTRAL) BHOPAL BHOPAL VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAAFB8527B I.T.A.NOS. 45 TO 51/IND/2016 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SMT. POOJA BANSAL, DY. CIT,(CENTRAL) BHOPAL BHOPAL VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AKVPG4580C BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 2 2 I.T.A.NOS. 52 TO 58/IND/2016 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SHRI SUNIL BANSAL, DY. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL BHOPAL VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO.ABCPG 1186A I.T.A.NOS. 59 TO 65/IND/2016 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SHRI ANIL BANSAL, DY. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL BHOPAL VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO.ABCPG 1187B I.T.A.NOS. 66 TO 72/IND/2016 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 SMT. PARUL BANSAL, DY. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL BHOPAL VS APPELLANT RESPONDENT BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 3 3 PAN NO. AKVPG7378L ] APPELLANTS BY : SHRI ANIL KHABYA, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR O R D E R PER BENCH. IN ALL THESE APPEAL, THE COMMON ISSUE IS AGAINST SUSTAINING PENALTY OF 10,000/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDING U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3), NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2013 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FU RNISH EXPLANATIONS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ALONGWITH NE CESSARY EVIDENCE, COPIES OF RELEVANT ACCOUNTS, PAPERS AND D OCUMENTS ON THE RESPECTIVE QUERIES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 ON 18.10.2013. IN THE SAID DATE YOU HAVE NEITHER ATTEN DED DATE OF HEARING : 19 . 0 4 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19. 0 4 .2016 BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 4 4 PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THER EAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE A CT DATED 11.11.2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE 13.11.2013 AT 11.30 A.M. AS TO WHY PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ON 12.11.2013 THE COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A COMMON REPLY FROM BANSAL GROUP WHER E HE HAS STATED, KINDLY REFER TO YOUR NOTICE ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE W ORK OF PREPARATION OF REPLY TO YOUR NOTICES AND QUESTIONNA IRE IS AT ADVANCE STAGE. DUE TO HEAVY PRESSURE OF WORK OF RET URN FILING UPTO 31.10.2013, FESTIVALS, WE COULD NOT COMPLETE T HE REPLY OF YOUR NOTICES. WE WERE ALSO EXTREMELY PREOCCUPIED WI TH THE OFFICERS OF VALUATION CELL DVO IN GETTING THE PROPE RTIES INSPECTED AND MEASURED IN COMPLIANCE TO YOUR REFERENCE U/S 14 2A OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS REQUESTED THAT W E MAY BE GIVEN TIME TO FURNISH THE REPLIES TO YOUR QUESTIONN AIRE WHICH INVOLVES VOLUMINOUS COMPLIANCES. WE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 5 5 EXTEND THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE BY AT LEAST 15 DAYS. WE WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS. YOUR REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BUT FOUN D TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED SUFFICIENT TIME FO R FILING OF WRITTEN REPLY AS PER QUERY DATED 30-.09.2 013 I.E. ONE AND HALF MONTH. 3. VIDE QUERY DATED 30.06.2013, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS AS PER QUERY ON OR BEFORE 18.10.2013 FAILING WHICH HE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) . 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS U NDER :- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE APPELLANT, THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 6 6 DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A.Y. 2012-13, TO THE ASS ESSEE ON 30/09/2013 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COPIES OF RELEVANT ACCOUNTS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS ON THE RESPECTIVE QUERIES ON OR BEFORE 18/1 0/2013. HOWEVER, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED AND DID NOT ATTEND ON THE PARTICULAR DATE ON WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. DUE TO THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSU ED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR PENALTY REQUIRING THE ASSESSE E TO SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE 13/11/2013 WHY PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NON COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142( 1) OF T HE I.T. ACT 1961. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO WORK PRESSURE, THEY COULD NOT REPLY TO THE NOTICES AND ASKED FOR FURTHER TIME TO FILE T HE REPLIES. 7. THE OBJECT OF ENACTING SECTION 271 OF THE I.T. A CT 1961 IS TO PROVIDE A DETERRENT AGAINST RECURRENCE OF DEFAUL T ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. PARLIAMENT HAS MADE PROVISI ONS BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 7 7 FOR PENALTY FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES WITH A VI EW TO ENSURE FAIR CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHENEVER A NOT ICE IS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COMPLIANCE IS TO B E MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE WITH THE APPELLANT, WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE COMPOUNDED WITH THE FACT THAT NO ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DATE OF H EARING. 8. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY TRIED TO DELAY THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO IN ORDER TO CR EATE HINDRANCES FOR THE INVESTIGATION. THE AO IS THE INV ESTIGATOR AS WELL AS PROSECUTOR AND ADJUDICATOR IN THE TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSES SEE TO FACILITATE THE PROCESS OF VERIFICATION AND INVESTIG ATION TO SUPPORT ITS CREDENTIALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS B OUND BY LAW TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT. DELIBERATE DELAY ING TACTICS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAMPER THE BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 8 8 WORK OF THE OFFICER. 9 . I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HENCE, ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARE CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOT ICE IN THE COURSE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2012-13 INITIATED PURSUANT TO SEARC H OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON 2.6.2011. THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO FURNISH EXPLANATIONS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ALO NGWITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND COPIES OF RELEVANT ACCOUNTS ON 18.10.2013. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED MERELY TWO WEEKS T IME TO FURNISH EXPLANATIONS. SIMILARLY, NOTICES WERE IS SUED ON SEVEN BUSINESS CONCERNS AND FOUR INDIVIDUALS. THE T IME ALLOWED BY THE AO WAS VERY SHORT AND IT WAS FOR ASSES SEE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES. THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO SEEK LEGAL BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 9 9 GUIDANCE IN THIS MATTER. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GROUP WAS BUSY IN FINALIZING WORK OF TAX AUDIT. THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE VERBAL REQUEST TO AO FOR TIME DURING THE COURS E OF DAILY INTERACTION IN SEARCH MATTER. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAU SE NOTICES ON 11.11.2013 TO FILE THE REPLY. THE ASSESS EE WAS UNABLE TO GIVE THE REPLY. THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PEN ALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE, WHICH WAS ALLOWED ONLY FOR TWO DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE T O REPLY. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2011-12 ON 7 .1.2013 AND FOR 2012-13 ON 27.09.2013. NOTICE U/S 143(2) WA S ISSUED ON 11.9.2013. FURTHER A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS A LSO ISSUED AND WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09. 2013. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. WE FIND FROM THE PENALTY ORDER THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN NOTIC E TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION, CONTENTIONS AND RELEVANT D OCUMENTS BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 10 10 AND TO REMAIN PRESENT ON 18.10.2013. ON THE SAID DA TE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR F ILED ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. HENCE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY SHAL L BE IMPOSED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, IF ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE. THE WORD REASONABLE CAUSE HAS N OT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, I T HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE VARIOUS COURTS. WHAT WOULD CONSTI TUTE REASONABLE CAUSE, CANNOT BE LAID DOWN WITH PRECISION AND EACH CASE WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED ON ITS MERIT BY T HE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED OR THE COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT SUFFICIENT GROUND IN TH E CONTEXT TO SECTION 273B HAVE BEEN MADE OUT FOR NOT IMPOSING PE NALTY FOR THE FAILURE. THE TAXATION LAW HAS INTRODUCED SIGNIFI CANT AMENDMENT TO THE PENALTY PROVISIONS BY DELETING THE EXPRESSION WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FROM THE SECTI ON 273B AND OTHER SECTIONS. THE AMENDMENT HAS INTRODUCED NE W BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 11 11 SECTION 273B SHIFTING BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRO VE THAT FAILURE, OMISSION OR COMMISSION, IS WITH REASONABLE CAUSE OR EXCUSE OR THERE IS ABSENCE OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATE BY THIS AMENDMENT IN 1986, THE ONUS OF PROVING THE EXISTENC E OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DEFAULT SHIFTED TO TAX PAY ER. IN THE CASE OF ANANTRAM VS. CIT, IT WAS HELD THAT BURDEN LI ES UPON THE REVENUE, WHO ESTABLISH THAT DISPUTED AMOUNT REPR ESENTS INCOME AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR DELI BERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER SECTION 27 3B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONT AINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SUB CLAUSE (B) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271, 271-B,SECTION 271BB, SECTION 271C, SECTION 271D,.., NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE PERSON OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFER RED TO IN THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASON ABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. 8. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ENUNCIATED THE MEANING OF REASONABLE CAUSE IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2001) 252 ITR 471. IT WAS HELD BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 12 12 THAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE CAN BE REASONABLY SAID TO BE A CAUSE WHICH PREVENTS A MAN OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE A ND ORDINARY PRUDENCE, ACTING UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE S, WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDES. IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CIT, (2001)118 TAXMAN,433 (DEL). THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS EXPRESSED EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE. THEREF ORE, IN THE CONTEXT OF PENALTY PROVISIONS, THE WORDS REASONABLE CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE THAT IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF ASS ESSEE. IN CWT VS. JAGDISH PRASAD CHOWDHARY, AIR 58, IT WAS HEL D THAT THE REASONABLE CAUSE MEANS A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND T HE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE; REASONABLE CAUSE OBVIOUS LY MEANS A CAUSE WHICH PREVENTS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINARY PR UDENCE ACTING UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION FOR WANT OF BONA FIDES FROM FURNISHING THE RETURN IN TIME. SECTION 271(1)(B) IS THE PENALTY FOR NON-COMP LIANCE WITH THE NOTICE U/S 141 TO FILE THE RETURN OR TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE AO OR U/S 143(2) TO PRODU CE THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELIES OR U/S 142A TO GET ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 13 13 THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA, 83 ITR 26 (S.C.) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR IMP OSING THE PENALTY. PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE ACTED DELIBERATELY. POWER TO LEVY THE PENALTY IS DISCRETI ONARY AND PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED FOR TECHNICAL AND VENIAL B REACH OF PROVISIONS AND NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED WHERE THE BR EACH OF PROVISIONS FLOWS FROM BONA FIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESS EE. 9. NOW COMING TO FACTS OF THIS CASE, IN THIS CASE, A NO TICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-07 TO 2011-12. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME U/S 153A ON 7.1.2013. THE RETURNS WERE EXAMINED AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) WERE ISSUED ON 11.9.2013. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIV EN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 143, 142(1) ALONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE ON 30.09.2013, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION ALONGWITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE ON 18.1 0.2013. ON THE SAID DATE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE P ROCEEDINGS NOR FILED THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT. THE AO HAS GI VEN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 11.11.2013, AS TO WHY THE PENALTY OF RS. BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 14 14 10,000/- SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT DUE TO HEAVY PRESSURE OF WORK OF RET URN AND FESTIVALS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NO TICE AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED FOR TIME TO FURNISH THE REPLY A ND THEY HAVE REQUESTED FOR 15 DAYS MORE TIME. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR FILING THE WRITTEN R EPLY I.E. 1-1/2 MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED ON 18.10.2013 FAILING WHICH IS LIABLE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 10 ,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 10. WE HAVE DISCUSSED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHERE IN IT IS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE, THE N ORDINARILY PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 7.1.2013 . THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 11.9.201 3. THE BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 15 15 ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT AND DID NOT REPLY T O THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REM AIN PRESENT NOR HE HAS SHOWN ANY REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF N OTICE IN HIS REPLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED TIME OF 1-1/2 MONTHS FOR FILING THE REPLY. IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY TO REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE AO. IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE, WHICH PREVENTED H IM FOR NOT FILING THE REPLY ON THAT DAY. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN AN Y REASON FOR HIS NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE RESPECTIVE DATE. THER EFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTED AS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(B) IS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. OF INDORE TRIBUNAL, BUT WE FOUND THAT AFTER THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. INDORE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS A DI RECT DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THIS DECIS ION WILL NOT BE HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE. BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 16 16 11. WE ALSO GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF MCKENZIES LIMITED & ORIENTAL TIMBER TRADING CORPORATION (P) LIMITED VS. CIT, (2000) 242 ITR 66 9, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHEN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS GIVEN A ND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, TH E ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY AND THE PROVISIONS O F PENALTY ARE ATTRACTED. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD AS UN DER :- THE FINDING REGARDING REASONABLE CAUSE IS ORDINARILY A FINDING OF FACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT AN Y EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY OF 12 MONTHS IN SUBMISSION OF THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITO U/S 271(1)(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THIS FACT IN ITS ORDER. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 17 17 271(1)(A) ARE ATTRACTED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION. 12. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA), CONFIRM THE PENALTY IN A LL THE YEARS. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH APRIL, 2016. CPU* 1826 BANSAL CONSTRUCTION WORK & OTHERS VS. DY. CIT (CENT RAL) BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 38/IND/2016 ETC. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR A.Y . 2006-07 TO 2012-13 18 18