Rajkumar Mohanlal (HUF), Ahmedabad V. ACIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 974/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7035 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPORVA BHARADWAJ
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(b); 142(1)

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.974/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-15 RAJKUMAR MOHANLAL HUF 1817, GIDC PHASE III VATVA, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAEHR 8200 B VS. ACIT, CIR.5(3) NARAYAN CHAMBERS AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI APPORVA BHARADWAJ, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 08/01/2019 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9/01/2019 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-5,AHMEDABAD DATED 2.2.2018 PASSED FOR ASS TT.YEAR 2014-15. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING THE ASSESSE E HAS SENT ONE LINE SUBMISSION CONTENDING THEREIN THAT APPEAL BE D ECIDED ON MERIT. ITA NO.974/AHD/2018 2 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAD CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON SIX OCCAS IONS EXCEPT PARTIAL COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE DATED 2.3.2016. IN RESPONSE T O THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL S HOWING REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE FROM COMPLYING WITH THOSE NOT ICES. HENCE, THE LD.AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- ONLY. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. A PERSUAL OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) WOULD INDICATE THAT ONE OF THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE WAS NON- SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON IT. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BUT TRESSED THIS SUBMISSION WITH ANY PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE. IT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A), IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, VIDE WHICH ITS EXPLANATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE HAVE BEEN SOUGHT. 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON W HICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY TH E AO, THEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAS RIGH TLY BEEN IMPOSED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DIS MISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH JANUARY, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 9/01/2019