Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5231 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
8 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-08-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
Not Allotted
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
03-12-2015
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LN L; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NOS. 852 TO 873/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2013-14 SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL, 1057, PANO KA DARIBA, SUBHASH CHOWK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABYPA 0837 A VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NOS. 874 TO 895/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2013-14 DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, 1057, PANO KA DARIBA, SUBHASH CHOWK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABHPA 4416 A VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.L. GUPTA (AR) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/08/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/08/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: BENCH. ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE TWO ASSESSEES ARISE AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-4, J AIPUR FOR A.Y. ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 2 2006-07 TO 2013-14. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF ONE OF THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAVING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING/TRADING OF PRECIOUS & SEMI PRECIOUS S TONES AT JAIPUR AND ALL GOODS ARE BEING EXPORT TO FOREIGN COUNTRY. REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED WHICH ARE D ULY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND REQUISITE RECORDS ARE DUL Y AUDITED BY AUDITOR. 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN UPHOLDING OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY LEARNED A.OS WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE REPLIES AND INFORMATION AS ASKED BY A.O. HENCE PENALTY IMPOSED BY A.O. IS ILLEGAL LD. CIT(A) ARE WRONG AND UNJUSTIFI ED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED BY THE LD A.O. DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, SIMILAR IDENTICAL GROUNDS HA VE BEEN TAKEN IN ALL THE YEARS. 3. ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ISSUE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFO RE, FOR SAKE FOR CONVENIENCE, COMMON ORDER IS PASSED IN BOTH THE CAS ES OF ASSESSEES. 4. THE SOLE GROUND IN EACH APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRM ING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2012-13 AND PEN ALTY U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2013-14. ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 3 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE APPELL ANT/ASSESSEE DEALS IN 100% EXPORT OF SEMI PRECIOUS STONES UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PARTNERSHIP CONCERN M/S BANSAL EXPORTS. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17/08/2011. DURING THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR SOM E DETAILS U/S 142 OF THE ACT, IN COMPLIANCE OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRO VIDED FULL DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS, WHICH AS PER PRESCRIBED NORMS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HAS BEE N PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PURSUANT TO THIS DEFAULT, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE LETTER ALONGWIT H PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2012-1 3 AND ON A.OS REPORT, JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR U/S 272A(1) OF T HE ACT FOR A.Y. 2013-12. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED, ASSES SEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN REPLY FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR, HO WEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT AND THE JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR FOR PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S 272A OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH D EFAULT, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 4 IN THE APPEALS OF SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 852 TO 87 3/JP/2015 S.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 10,000 U/S 271(1)(B)/272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT 1 444/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 2 697/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 3 698/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 4 445/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 5 699/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 6 700/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 7 446/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 8 701/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 9 702/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 10 447/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 11 703/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 12 704/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 13 448/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 14 705/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 15 706/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 16 449/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 17 707/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 18 708/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 19 450/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 20 709/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 21 710/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 22 442/2013-14 2013-14 LEVIED U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT . 17/7/2013 IN THE APPEALS OF DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 874 TO 89 5/JP/2015 S.NO ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 10,000 U/S 271(1)(B)/272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT DATE ON WHICH APPEAL INSTITUTED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WHETHER APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF APPEAL FILED OR NOT 1 683/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 2 684/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 3 451/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 23/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 4 685/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/02/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 5 5 686/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/02/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 6 452/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 7 688/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/02/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 8 453/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 9 687/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 10 689/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 11 690/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 12 454/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 13 455/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 14 691/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 15 692/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 16 693/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 17 694/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 18 456/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 19 695/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 20 696/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 21 457/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 6 22 441/2013-14 2013-14 LEVIED U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 17/7/2013 19/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND JCIT MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BE FORE THE LD CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES COMBINED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEALS BY OBSERVING THAT PURSUANT TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INITIATED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(2)OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION U/ S 245D(1) OF THE ACT ON 23/1/2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL BENCH-I I, ITSC DELHI. THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ORDER DATED 31/0 7/205 HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- IN THE APPEALS OF SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 852 TO 87 3/JP/2015 A.Y. INCOME AS PER RETURNS FILLED BEFORE A.O. ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE SOF ADDITIONAL MADE DURING PROCEEDING U/S 245D(4) TOTAL INCOME SETTLED U/S 245D(4) 2006-07 3,54,966 NIL NIL 3,54,966 2007-08 20,87,200 NIL NIL 20,87,200 2008-09 15,88,061 NIL NIL 15,88,061 2009-10 11,09,840 NIL NIL 11,09,840 2010-11 1,67,820 NIL NIL 1,67,820 2011-12 9,460 30,00,000 14,45,783 44,55,243 2012-13 71,858 12,50,000 6,02,410 19,24,268 TOTAL 53,89,204 42,50,000 20,48,193 1,16,87,397 IN THE APPEALS OF DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 874 TO 89 5/JP/2015 A.Y. INCOME AS PER RETURNS FILLED BEFORE A.O. ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE SOF ADDITIONAL MADE DURING PROCEEDING U/S 245D(4) TOTAL INCOME SETTLED U/S 245D(4) 2006-07 10,05,581 NIL NIL 10,05,581 2007-08 (-)2,36,070 NIL NIL (-)2,36,070 2008-09 20,63,030 NIL NIL 20,63,030 ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 7 2009-10 11,97,580 NIL NIL 11,97,580 2010-11 9,72,100 NIL NIL 9,72,100 2011-12 17,21,650 62,50,000 30,12,048 1,09,83,698 2012-13 38,11,200 1,02,50,000 49,39,759 1,90,00,959 TOTAL 1,05,37,071 1,65,00,000 79,51,807 3,49,88,878 IT IS OBSERVED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED TWO GROUNDS IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. GROUND NO. 2 WAS OF GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. AS T HE FACTS OF ALL THESE APPEALS ARE QUITE SIMILAR AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUB MITTED A COMBINED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR ALL THESE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY HE CLUBBED TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF ADJUDICATION. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL EXCEPT IN SOM E, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: IN THE APPEALS OF SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 852 TO 87 3/JP/2015 S.NO ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 10,000 U/S 271(1)(B)/272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT ODER RECEIVED ON DATE ON WHICH APPEAL INSTITUTED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WHETHER APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF APPEAL FILED OR NOT 1 444/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2014 WITHIN TIME NA 2 697/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 3 698/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 4 445/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2014 WITHIN TIME NA 5 699/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 8 6 700/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 7 446/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 8 701/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 9 702/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 10 447/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 11 703/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 12 704/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 13 448/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 14 705/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 15 706/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 16 449/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 17 707/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 18 708/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 19 450/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 20 709/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 21 710/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 22 442/2013-14 2013-14 LEVIED U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 17/7/2013 05/08/2013 19/08/2013 WITHIN TIME NA ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 9 IN THE APPEALS OF DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 874 TO 89 5/JP/2015 S.NO ITA NO. A.Y. PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 10,000 U/S 271(1)(B)/272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT ODER RECEIVED ON DATE ON WHICH APPEAL INSTITUTED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WHETHER APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF APPEAL FILED OR NOT 1 683/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 2 684/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 3 451/2013-14 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 23/08/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 4 685/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 5 686/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 6 452/2013-14 2007-08 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 7 688/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 8 453/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 9 687/2013-14 2008-09 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 10 689/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 11 690/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 12 454/2013-14 2009-10 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 13 455/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 14 691/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 10 15 692/2013-14 2010-11 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 16 693/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 17 694/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 18 456/2013-14 2011-12 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 19 695/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 20 696/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/2/2014 DELAY OF 158 DAYS NOT FILED 21 457/2013-14 2012-13 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 24/07/2013 05/08/2013 23/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA 22 441/2013-14 2013-14 LEVIED U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT. 17/7/2013 05/08/2013 19/8/2013 WITHIN TIME NA FROM THE TABLE GIVEN ABOVE, IT IS FOUND BY THE LD C IT(A) THAT OUT OF 44 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES, 16 APPEALS WERE FILE D IN TIME AND BALANCE 28 CASES IN BOTH THE CASES, THERE WAS DELAY OF 158 DAYS, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SUBMITTED ANY APPLIC ATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS REQUIRED U/S 249(3) OF THE ACT. FOR THEIR ADMISSION, NO ANY SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD, THEREF ORE, HE DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES BEYOND PRESCRIBED DA TE AS PER SECTION 249(2) OF THE ACT. THUS, HE DISMISSED THE FOLLOWING APPEALS, WHICH WAS FILED AFTER THE DEADLINE WITHOUT ANY CONDONATION PET ITION. ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 11 IN THE APPEALS OF SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 852 TO 87 3/JP/2015 S.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. 2 697/2013-14 2006-07 3 698/2013-14 2006-07 5 699/2013-14 2007-08 6 700/2013-14 2007-08 8 701/2013-14 2008-09 9 702/2013-14 2008-09 11 703/2013-14 2009-10 12 704/2013-14 2009-10 14 705/2013-14 2010-11 15 706/2013-14 2010-11 17 707/2013-14 2011-12 18 708/2013-14 2011-12 20 709/2013-14 2012-13 21 710/2013-14 2012-13 IN THE APPEALS OF DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA 874 TO 89 5/JP/2015 S.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. (I) 683/2013-14 2006-07 (II) 684/2013-14 2006-07 (III) 685/2013-14 2007-08 (IV) 686/2013-14 2007-08 (V) 688/2013-14 2008-09 (VI) 687/2013-14 2008-09 (VII) 689/2013-14 2009-10 (VIII) 690/2013-14 2009-10 (IX) 691/2013-14 2010-11 (X) 692/2013-14 2010-11 (XI) 693/2013-14 2011-12 (XII) 694/2013-14 2011-12 (XIII) 695/2013-14 2012-13 (XIV) 696/2013-14 2012-13 LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THIS ALSO SHOWS ASSE SSEES CALLOUS ATTITUDE AND ALSO HIS SERIOUSNESS ABOUT FILING APPE ALS IN TIME. HOWEVER, ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 12 ISSUES PERTAINING TO THESE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS, ALSO HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS BY THE LD CIT(A). HE REPRODUCED TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON PAGE NO. 5 OF HIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF BO TH THE ASSESSEES. THEREAFTER HE REPRODUCED THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON PAGE 5 AND U/S 2 72A(1) ON PAGE 6 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND HAD TAKEN A NOTICE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF T HE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE ALSO HELD THAT 16 APPEALS, WHIC H HAS BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WERE DELAY OF 158 DAYS. THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF SUCH DELAY AND ADMISSION OF THOSE APPEALS, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN COMPLIANCE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE GOT NOTICES FRO M THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THESE NOTICES OR PROVIDED SKETCHY DETAILS AND TRIED TO SEEK AS MANY AS ADJOURNMENTS FROM VARIOUS GROUNDS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS TABULATED THE ASSESSEES ACTION IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1 ) OF THE ACT ON PAGES 9 TO 13 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. THE FACTUAL ASPEC TS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR. HE HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACT RELA TING TO A.Y. 2006-07 FOR PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND A. Y. 2013-14 FOR PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 272A(1) OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 13 ISSUES, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS LEV IABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUE D U/S 142(1) OR 143(2) OR U/S 115 WD (2) OR 4 115WE(2) OR ANY DIREC TION ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) TO SECTION 142 OF THE ACT. THE SECT ION FURTHER LAYS DOWN THAT IN CASE OF DEFAULT, THE PENALTY IS LEVIAB LE IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY PAYABLE, A SUM OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH SUCH F AILURE. FURTHER PENALTY U/S 272A IS LEVIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER Q UESTIONS, SIGN DOCUMENTS, FURNISH INFORMATION, RETURNS OR STATEMEN TS ETC.. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO EXAMINE IN THIS MATTER WHETHER THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PROVIDE REQUISITE DETAILS A S CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER., AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF NOTICE U/S 14 2(1) OF THE ACT. HE HAS REPRODUCED SECTION 271(1)(B) AND 272A(1) ON PAG E 14 AND 15 OF THE ORDER. THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE BEFORE THE A SSESSEE FOR NOTE MAKING COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) AND SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF WODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD. VS. CIT & ORS (2002) 253 ITR 7 45 (DELHI) FOR REASONABLE CAUSE, AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN VS UNION OF INDIA 252 ITR 471 (DELHI) FOR REASONABLE CAUSE. ON ASSESSEE FOR NOTIC E U/S 142(1) AND SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE SERVED PROPERLY ON TH E ASSESSEE AND NO REASONABLE CAUSE WAS THERE NOT TO MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THESE NOTICES. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 14 COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS. ST ATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 ON REASONABLE CAUSE. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THESE FACTS ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: THE SAID SWITZERLAND HSBC BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOS ED TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THE SAME BUT DID NOT PROVIDE FULL PARTICULARS EVEN IF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED . DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, FROM THE CHARTS ENCL OSED AND COPY OF SCANNED DOCUMENTS (MENTIONED ABOVE), IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT NO OF ADJOURNMENTS BUT DELIBERA TELY DID NOT PROVIDE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. ASSESSEE HAS ON ONE OCCASION SOUGHT FOR AN ADJOURNMENT FOR 15-20 DAYS AS HIS COU NSEL SH ASHOK. KANODIA WAS OUT OF STATION WHEREAS IN AUTHORIZ ATION FOR POWER OF ATTORNEY, ONLY SH B L GUPTA WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS ASSESSEES INTENT ION. FAILURE LIES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED ASSESSEE FROM FURN ISHING OF RELEVANT PARTICULARS PERTAINING TO THAT HSBC SWITZER LAND BANK ACCOUNTS. ON PERUSAL OF CASE RECORDS AND SCANNED DO CUMENT MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS DELI BERATELY ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENTS SO AS TO AVOID FURNISHING OF DETAI LS AS CALLED FOR. ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT ONCE HIS APPLICATION FL ED U/S 245D(1) OF THE ACT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE SETTL EMENT COMMISSION NEW DELHI THEN AUTOMATICALLY, ALL ASSESSM ENT ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 15 PROCEEDINGS WILL ABATE AND ASSESSEE CAN SAFELY AVOID FURNISHING OF REQUISITE DETAILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE AO. BUT ASSES SEES THESE ACTS PROVE THAT HE IS AN ACTUAL DEFAULTER AND HABITUAL D EFAULTER. HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 (S C) -PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED, EIT HER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF COND UCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DIS REGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THIS JUD GMENT BUT FACTS OF CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM PRESENT ON E. HERE IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY DECIDED NOT TO PROVI DE RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF HSBC BANK SWITZERLAND WHICH HE HAS A LREADY ACCEPTED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. FROM THE LETTERS REQUESTING FOR FREQUENT A DJOURNMENTS, THIS FACT IS ALSO PROVED. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AND ON THE GROUND THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED O NLY ON ACTUAL OR HABITUAL DEFAULTERS AND COULD NOT BE IM POSED FOR MERE TECHNICAL NON-COMPLIANCE. BUT IN THIS CASE, AO HAS PROVIDED AMPLE/ADEQUATE NO OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING REQUISITE DETAILS AS ASKED FOR, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS RECORDED IN STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ALSO THE COMBINED SUBMI SSION FILED ON 08/09/2015, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SAME. AS SESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS IN 14 CASES ON 05/02/2014, DELAY OF 1 58 DAYS AND ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 16 THERE IS NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT SUCH DELAY IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS OR ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMI SSION OF THOSE APPEAL AFTER CONDONATION OF SUCH DELAY OF 158 DAYS. ON PERUSAL OF COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING STAGE (PRIOR TO FILING OF APPLICATION BEFORE HONBL E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION NEW DELHI), IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PAIL OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AR . EVEN IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE A CT ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED TO OWNING HSBC A/C. THEREAFTER S TATEMENT U/S 132(4) HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON P AGE NO. 18 AND 19 OF THE ORDER. BUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PRIOR TO FILIN G OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION NEW DELHI, ASSESSES HAS AVOIDED AND DEFAULTED IN PROVIDING THE RELEVANT DET AILS (AS CALLED FOR) PERTAINING THE AFOREMENTIONED BANK ACCOUNTS AN D SOUGHT A NO OF ADJOURNMENTS. IN ONE OCCASION THE ASSESSEE HA S MENTIONED THAT HIS COUNSEL SH ASHOK KANODIA IS OUT OF STATION WHEREAS IN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR AR, HE HAS ONLY AUTHORIZED SH B L GUPTA FCA TO APPEAR BEFORE THE I.T AUTHORITY WHICH PROVES ASSESSE E BEING A HABITUAL OFFENDER. FACTS OF CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR ARE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSEES CASES. ASSESSEE CANN OT TAKE ANY LIBERTY IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED AND GET SCOT FREE. FINALLY THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE REP EATEDLY VIOLATED THE COMPLIANCE U/S 271(1)(B) AND 272A(1) OF THE ACT AND IS LIABLE TO IMPOSE ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 17 PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE CASES IN ALL THE YEARS. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. EARLIE R ON 10/03/2016, THIS COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MER IT AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THEIR COUNSEL WERE AVAILABLE DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER DATED 08/07/2016, THE TRIBUNAL HA S RESTORED THE MATTER BACK WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISS UE ON MERIT ON TODAY I.E. 02/8/2016. 7.1 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES RECEIVED BY THEM AND HAVE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE LD A.O. A ND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER ISSUED IS NOT CALLED FOR. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE HABITUAL OFFENDER AND IT CAN BE PRESUMED FROM T HE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT AT EVERY STAGE, T HEY ARE DEFAULTER IN MAKING COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES. AS SUCH, EVEN DUR ING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE NON-COOPERATIVE WITH THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BOTH TH E ASSESSEES HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HSBC BANK , SWITZERLAND, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING. EVEN IN NOT ICES ISSUED BY THE ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 18 ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(1) AND 131, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION WHICH WAS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER THAT IN 28 CASE S OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAD FILED BELATED APPEALS BEFORE HIM WHERE NO CONDONATION APPLICATION HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, THE SAME IS DESERVED TO BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. PAGE NO. 9 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER (RECORD SHOWS) SHOWS NOTICES WERE ISSUE D U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEES ON 12/4/2013, 02/5/2013, 1 3/5/2013 AND 06/6/2013 WHEREBY THEY WERE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE HSBC BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 5090156243. HOWEVER, ALL THE NOTICES WERE NOT DULY COMPLIED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS WERE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE A S SOUGHT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T PROVIDED THE DULY SIGNED COPY OF THE CONSENT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER SO AS TO UNABLE THE A.O. TO CALL FOR THE DETAILS OF THE HSBC BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE BANK ITSELF. AS THE ASSESSEES HAD NOT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION TO THE AO, DESPITE RECEIVED THE NOTICE, THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE ASSESSES FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 19 I.E. FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2013-14 @ RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH DEFAULT. IN OUR VIEW, A SEPARATE PENALTY, THOUGH, FOUR NOTICES WERE I SSUED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME INFORMATION SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSES SEES FOR EACH DEFAULT. NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT REMAINED NOT COMPLIED WITH ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE AS PER S ECTION 272A(1) OF THE ACT HAS NOT GIVEN THE EVIDENCES OR PRODUCED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AS CALLED UPON U/S 131 OF THE ACT, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEES SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY O F RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH DEFAULT OR FAILURE IN RESPECT OF EACH NOTICE. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ANY REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF LAW FOR NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS FURTHER NOT SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURN ISHING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AS CALLED UPON BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFI CER. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING ON THE DIFFERENT DATES OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F THE ACT AND FOR NOT COMPLYING THE SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT. ITA 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015_ SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL & DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. DCI T 20 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSE SSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/08/2016. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN YFYR DQEKJ (BHAGCHAND) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 03 RD AUGUST, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL/ DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NOS. 852 TO 873/JP/2015 & 874 TO 895/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026