SHRI SANATAN DHARAM PARCHARAK SABHA ( REGD), LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALAANDHAR

ITA 85/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sanatan Dharam Parcharak Sabha, which appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for non-compliance with a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was initially levied by the ITO and was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to attend hearings or provide a valid reason for non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities given. The Tribunal found the appellant's counsel's reason of being engaged in other matters insufficient to constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114667 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanatan Dharam Parcharak Sabha (Regd.) C/o S.D.P. College for Women, Fort Road, Near Power House, Daresi Ground, Ludhiana- 141 008 (Punjab). [PAN: AADTS 5721K] Vs. Income Tax Office (Exemptions) Ward-Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written submission) Respondent by: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated ITA No. 85/Asr/2023 Sanatam Dharam Parcharak Sabha v. ITO 2 06.02.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2016-17, challenging therein the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 2. None attended nor any adjournment has been filed by the appellant assessee on all the dates when the appeal was posted for hearing, i.e., 24.05.2023, 13.06.2023, 03.08.2023 and 24.08.2023. Non compliance of the assessee-appellant to the notices issued by the registered post prima- facie establishes the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant before the authorities below. It was, therefore, decided to hear the ld. DR to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. Having heard the ld. DR, perusal of material on record and the impugned order, we find that in the present case, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was initiated on 10.11.2019 for non compliance to the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.10.2018 bearing no. 947 which was being served through the departmental portal and it has not been responded by the appellant. The AO has further granted opportunity to the assessee in view of natural justice by issuing of penalty show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 27.02.2021. The AO being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, in absence of valid reasons for non compliance of the notice issued u/s 142(2) of the I.T. Act, held that it was a ITA No. 85/Asr/2023 Sanatam Dharam Parcharak Sabha v. ITO 3 fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee for non compliance of the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.10.2018. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- by stating that the reason stated by the appellant counsel that the counsel was engaged in other matters is not a reasonable cause for failure to comply to notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was justified under the law in holding that the appellant counsels reason given that he was engaged in other matters would not constitute a reasonable cause for failure to make compliance to notice u/s 142(1), because it was not corroborated with the material evidence to adjudicate the validity of the reasons. 5. It is pertinent to mention that neither the assessee nor the assessee’s counsel has bothered to either attend or filing any adjournment application before the Tribunal in compliance to four notices of hearing issued to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard to enable the appellant assessee to explain the reasons if any for non compliance to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. In view of that matter, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal ITA No. 85/Asr/2023 Sanatam Dharam Parcharak Sabha v. ITO 4 on merits. On merits, we hold that the appellant assessee has no case, as he failed to file any documentary evidences before us to substantiate the reason for non compliance of statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. In view of that matter, we find no infirmity or perversity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In view of above, we find no merits and substance in the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.10,000/- is hereby sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order