Manish Bhagwanjibhai Dalsania, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 69/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 6924914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL , SMC BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 69 /RJT/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 3 - 04 ) MANISH BHAGVANJIBHAI DALSANIA V. ITO, WARD - 1(3), RAJKOT RAJKOT PAN : ALEPD 8739 L DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 . 0 5 . 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .06. 201 3 ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, DR ORDER D. K. SRIVASTAVA : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) - I , RAJKOT ON 31 .0 1 .2013, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - (1) THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) - I, RAJKOT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT., AMOUNT OF RS.70,000/ - . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NUMBER 1 TH E PENALTY LEVIED IS TOO HEAVY ARBITRARY AND NOT WARRANTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN FILED WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AUTHORIZING SHRI P B DADHANIA AND SHRI A M VYAS IN TERMS OF SECTION 288 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. FIRST NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 20.05.2013 WAS DULY RECEIVED BY M/S P B DADHANIA & CO ON 13.05.2013. ON 20.05.2013 , NEITHER ANYBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNME NT FILED. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 31.05.2013, WHICH TOO WAS RECEIVED BY SHRI A M VYAS. ON 31.05.2013 ALSO , NEITHER ANYBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED. IN THI S VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT SEVEN NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ON DIFFERENT DATES WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE AS SESSEE. THE DETAILS OF THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE AND DATE OF HEARING ARE GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.06.2011 AND PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). PERUSAL OF PENALTY ORDER SHOWS THAT 2 ITA 69 /RJT/2013 SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DEFAULT COM MITTED BY HIM IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY AT THE RATE OF RS.10,000/ - FOR EACH OF SEVEN DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 5.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE NOTICES WERE SERVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANTS UNCLE IN RAJKOT AND HIS UNCLE NEVER BOTHERED TO INFORM THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE INCOME TAX NOTICES. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM 2/6/2010 TO 4/10/2010, I.E. FOR FOUR MONTHS. EVEN IF THE APPELLANT WAS STAYING AT THE VILLAGE, HE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT HE NEVER VISITED RAJKOT DURING THIS PERIOD. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS THEREFORE VERY LAME AND NOT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S.144 ON ACCOUNT OF NON - COMPLIANCE BY THE APPELLANT. I AGREE WITH THE A.O. THAT THE NON - COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL. IN MY OPINION, THE A.O. IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U /S.271(1)(B). THE PENALTY LEVIED IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 5. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L D CIT(A) THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICES AS THE NOTICES WERE SERVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEES UNCLE IN RAJKOT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING AT A DIFFERENT PLACE AND THAT HIS UNCLE DID NOT INFORM HIM ABOUT THE NOTICES. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD GIVEN HIS ADDRESS AS 701 - SILVER APPARTMENT, NR. KANYA CHHATRALAYA, PANCHAYAT CHOWK, RAJKOT. IMPUGNED NOTICES WERE SENT AT TH AT ADDRESS. PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) SHOWS 3 ITA 69 /RJT/2013 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANGED HIS ADDRESS TO 102, KISHAN PALACE, OPP. ROYAL PROVISION STORE, B/H. DOSHI HOSPITAL, RAJKOT . PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT HE HAS GIVEN HIS ADDRESS AS P.B. DADHANI A & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 514 - STAR PLAZA, PHULCHHAB CHOWK, RAJKOT. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHANGING HIS ADDRESS QUITE FREQUENTLY. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THAT HE HAS GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF HIS UNCLE AT THE ASSESS MENT STAGE AND NOT HIS OWN ADDRESS AND THAT IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT HE COULD NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS THEN TO BLAME HIMSELF. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT GIVE HIS TRUE AND CORRECT ADDRESS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PERHAPS WANTS TO CONCEAL HIS TRUE ADDRESS. BE THAT AS IT M AY , THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 .06 . 201 3 SD/ - ( D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT: 20 .06 .2013 BT COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT - MANISH BHAGVANJIBHAI DALSANIA, RAJKOT 2 . RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1(3), RAJKOT 3 . CONCERNED CIT , RAJKOT - I, RAJKOT 4. CIT(A) - I, RAJKOT 4 . DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 5 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE CO PY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT