PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. I.T.O. CIR8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6312/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8093 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI JH LAT; VJKSM+K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH LAT; VJKSM+K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH LAT; VJKSM+K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH LAT; VJKSM+K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6312/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2008-09 PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 5 TH FLOOR, SQUARE-1, GULMOHAR ROAD NO. 1, J.V.P.D SCHEME MUMBAI - 400 009. VS.` INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 8(2)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR M.K. MARG MUMBAI - 400 020. PAN: AACCP4924F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2012 OF CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271( 1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOW ING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL 17 E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS. 10,000/- 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL 17 ERR ED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF LAW ABIDING APPELLANT. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPIT E REPEATED SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD ON 7.7.2014 AND 18.7.2014. IT I S PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT EARLIER ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SERVED WITH THE NO TICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI NEIL PHILIP DATE OF HEARING 9-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.10.2014 PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD 2 | P A G E APPEAL AND IN RESPONSE TO THE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A LETTER DATED 4.11.2012 RECTIFYING THE DEFECTS. SINCE NONE HAS APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF T HIS APPEAL EX PARTE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.10.2010. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 11.10.2010 CALLING FOR CERTA IN DETAILS ON 18.10.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THAT DESPITE ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME PERIOD FOR FURNISHING DETAILS AND EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO FURNISH ANY DETAIL TILL DATE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 29.10.2 010, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) FOR N ON COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2010, ISSUED U/S 142(1). EVEN IN THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER TO APPEAR AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER LEVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAULT BY THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) VIDE ORDER DATE D 27.04.2011. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING O FFICER BEFORE CIT(A) AND EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO PREOCCUPATION WITH OTHER ONGO ING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF DETAILS DUE TO ABSENTISM OF THE ACCOUNTANT, THE REPLY COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 10.11.2010. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMEN T WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.12.2010. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED O N 29.10.2010 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY ON 10.11.2010. THE ASSE SSEE PLEADED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY I S NOT FOR MERE TECHNICAL NON COMPLIANCE BUT FOR ACTUAL OR HABITUAL DEFAULTERS AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR DELETION OF PENALTY. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE REASON EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON COMPLIA NCE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FOUND PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD 3 | P A G E REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A)N CONFIRMED THE L EVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B). 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D THE PARTIAL DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 28.07.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/ S 142(1) DATED 3.08.2010, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED INCOMPLETE DETAILS AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 11.10.2010 REQUIRING THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH ITS EXPLANATION AND ALLOWABILITY OF VARIOUS EXPENSES A ND OTHER ISSUES ON 18.10.2010. NEITHER ANY REQUEST FOR MORE TIME NOR ANY DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN AP PEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2010. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DEFAULT AND NON COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OF TH E NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 11.10.2010. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B ), THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR AND SENT THE REQUEST TO KEEP THE PENALTY IN A BEYANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT B E KEPT IN ABEYANCE DUE TO TIME LIMITATION. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INTEREST AND SINCERITY TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B). BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUM OF DEFAULT, HOWEVER, THE EXPLA NATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO ONGOING PREOCCUPATION WITH THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND NON AVAILABILITY OF THE DETAILS DUE TO ABS ENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT, THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED/FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THERE MAY BE A DIFFICULTY IN FURNISHING THE DETAILS ON THE DATE AS AS KED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) AN D ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 29.10.2010, THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAV E SUBMITTED A REPLY ON 10.11.2010. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT TILL THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO SEE K THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD 4 | P A G E COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). WE FIND THAT TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE OF REASONABLE CAUSE OR BONA FIDE REASON FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE IN QUESTION. EVEN THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE US DESPITE THE REPEATED SERVICE OF NOTICES OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THUS IT APPEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INTEREST/SINCERITY I N THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 6. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 17 -1 0-2014 SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 17-10 -2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI PALMTRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD 5 | P A G E S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.10.2014 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.10.2014 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 10-2014 SR. PS/P S 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 10-2014 SR. P S/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER