Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta L/H. Sh. Kishore Gupta, Gwalior V. I.T.O., Range-2(2), Gwalior

ITA 92/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0686 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 92/AGRA/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 SHRI SURESH CHAND GUPTA, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, L/H SHRI KISHORE GUPTA, RANGE 2(2), GWALIOR. GUBBARA PATHAK, LOHIYA BAZAR, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. (PAN : ACLPW 9314 N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 05.07.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 23.01.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAS DISCUSSED T HE ISSUE OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. THE AO BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, BUT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS NO REPLY WAS F ILED. THE AO WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WI THOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, ITA NO. 92/AGRA/2013 2 THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) IN A SUM OF RS.30 ,000/- WAS IMPOSED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE-2, GWALIOR. T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO CHALLENGE THE PENALTY ORDE R. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 25.06.20 13 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE HIS COUNSEL HAS G ONE OUT OF STATION FOR URGENT WORK, THEREFORE, THE ADJOURNMENT MAY BE GRANTED. ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 02.07.2013. ON 02.07.2013, APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS FILED BY SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, IN WHICH IT WAS SIMILARLY MENTIONED THAT HIS COUNSEL HAS GONE OUT OF STATION, WHO IS EXPECTED TO COME BACK AFTER 15.07.2013. NO NAME OF COUNSEL IS MENTIONED I N THE APPLICATION. RECORD REVEALS THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE T HROUGH SHRI V. BAPNA, GAJENDRA KUAMR JAIN AND GOPI MANDHAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THERE IS NO OTHER POWER OF ATTORNEY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. WHO HAS FILED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FOR ASSESSEE IS AUTHORIZED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL BEING OUT OF STATION. IT MAY ALSO BE ADDED HERE THAT HE HAS ARGUED OTHER APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARIN G BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ARE INC ORRECT, FALSE AND WITHOUT REASONS. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT SRI V. BAPNA, CA AND GAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN WERE PRESENT IN THE COURT AT THE ITA NO. 92/AGRA/2013 3 TIME OF HEARING OF PRESENT APPEAL, BUT THEY DID NOT ARGUE THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, HEARD EXPARTE. THE LD. DR REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D R IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AT THE PENALTY STAGE DID NOT ATTEND THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S AND NO REPLY WAS FILED DESPITE SERVICE OF PENALTY NOTICE. THE SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. THUS, NOTHING IS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO WHY TH ERE WAS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANA TION AND THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY