Sh. Kiran Pal Singh, Meerut V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 742/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3523 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT A ND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 742/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 SHRI KIRAN PAL SINGH, 207, DEVI NAGAR, S.K. ROAD, MEERUT. VS. ITO WARD 1 (3) MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. V.K. GOEL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANEESH BAHUGUNA ,SR. DR PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 25 TH JANUARY, 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- LEVIED U/S 2 71(1) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 742/DEL-2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2006 DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS. 1,00,000/- FROM BUSINESS OF CIVIL CON TRACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 18.10.2007 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 19.10.2007. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE N OTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED 7 MORE NOTICES IN A RO W U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIED ON 25.6. 200 8, 17.7.2008, 2.9.2008, 14.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 28.11.2008, 10.12 .2008. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE AO HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE INVITING AN EXPLANAT ION OF ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(B) BE NOT IMPOSED. THE A SSESSE DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE ALSO. THE LD. AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- FOR IGNORING THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AS WELL AS 142(1) OF THE ACT. HE HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ACCORD ING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED TH AT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE WHO IS AN ILLITERATE LADY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE HE HAS NEVER RECEIVED THE NOTICE BECAUSE H E ALWAYS REMAINED OUT OF THE HOME IN CONNECTION WITH HIS BUSINESS. LD . CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ITA NO. 742/DEL-2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 3 THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANAT ION MORE SO ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) SUCH EXPLANATION DOES N OT CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN TERMS OF SECTION 273B OF THE AC T. LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D HIS CONTENTION AS WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LANDLORD WHO HAS REGISTERED A CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO THIS REASON AS SESSEE REMAINED OUT OF THE HOUSE FOR MOST OF THE TIME PARTICULARLY FOR SIX MONTHS IN THAT PERIOD. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF AO. 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT ONLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR WHICH HE INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDING U/S 271(B) OF THE ACT BUT HE HAD ISSUED SEVEN MORE NOTICES U/S 14 2 (1) IN A ROW. ALL THESE NOTICES REMAINED UN COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESS EE IS A CONTRACTOR FURNISHED HIS RETURN HE IS WELL VERSED ABOUT POSITI ON THAT INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ATTENDED BY HIM. WE COULD APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE SERVED U/S 143(2) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY HIS WIFE BECAUSE OF HER I LLNESS, IF ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING . HE DID NOT BOTHER ITA NO. 742/DEL-2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 4 TO RESPOND ANY OF THE NOTICE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIS RESIDENCE. IT ONLY INDICATE THAT HE DID NOT TAKE THESE NOTICES SERIOUSLY AND DID NOT DEEM IT FIT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE OF THESE NOTICES. THIS IS ONLY A CORROBORA TING CIRCUMSTANCE FOR APPRECIATING THE CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING A LL THESE ASPECTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.7.2010. SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [RAJPAL YADAV] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.7.2010 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT