Orient Spa Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar V. The ACIT, Cent. Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 285/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2123 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ADITYA SHUKLA, SR DR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 12/07/2016 / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/07/2016 / // / O R D E R THESE GROUPS OF APPEALS ARE FILED BY FOUR DIFFEREN T ASSESSEES AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-III, AHMEDABAD OF EVEN DATE 09.05.201 3, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE DEFAULTS OF NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICE S IN EACH CASE. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME GROUP AND RAISE COMMO N ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B), THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, ON CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD AND THE SN IT(SS)A NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1-3 285 TO 287/AHD/2013 2008-09 2009-10 2011-12 ORIENT SPA PVT LTD, CAMBAY SQUARE, GIDC ELECTRONIC ESTATE, SECTOR 25, GANDHINAGAR PAN : AAACO 9963 B ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD 4-10 288 TO 294/AHD/2013 2005-06 TO 2011-12 NEESA LEISURE LTD, PLOT NO.X-22, 23 & 24, GIDC ELECTRONIC ESTATE, SECTOR 25, GANDHINAGAR PAN : AABCG 7129 C ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD 11-16 295 TO 300/AHD/2013 2005-06 TO 2010-11 SANJAY GUPTA, B-202, DHANANJAY TOWER, SATELLITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN : ABUPG 5799 B ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD 17-23 301 TO 307/AHD/2013 2005-06 TO 2011-12 SMT. NEELU GUPTA, B-202, DHANANJAY TOWER, SATELLITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN : ADYPG 0351 K ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD SMC-GROUP APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) 2 SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. SR. DR, IT WAS CONSIDERED AP PROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEALS EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANTS ON MERIT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR CONTENDS THAT IN ALL THESE CASES ASSESSEES WANTONLY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTOR Y NOTICES AS MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IM POSED THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE IMPOSITION OF THESE MINOR PENALTIES BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 7. SECTION 271 (1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES FOR L EVY OF PENALTY, IF A TAX PAYER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY AO CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION. THESE PENAL PROVISIONS ARE KEPT IN OR DER TO ENSURE THAT STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO ARE NOT TAKEN LIG HTLY BY THE TAX PAYERS. THESE STATUTORY NOTICES ARE ISSUED BY THE AO NOT IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY BUT IN THE CAPACITY OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA FOR EXERCISING THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF COLLECTING DUE TAXES. 4. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 142 (1), 131/133(6), WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE, IN ORDER TO FRAME THE ASSE SSMENT IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES FAILED TO MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE WHICH R ESULTED IN PROLIFERATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND UNDUE WASTE OF THE GOVERNMENTS TIME. IN SOME CASES, DUE TO NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN A SPEC IAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) WAS DIRECTED. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS A DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC STRATEGY TO DELAY THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ONE PRETEXT OR ANOTHER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, LD . CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. IT IS CONTENDED BY LD. DR THAT THE ASSE SSEES CARELESS ATTITUDE IS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT EVEN BEFORE THE ITAT AL SO FOR SMALL PENALTIES, EITHER ADJOURNMENTS ARE BEING SOUGHT OR NO APPEARAN CE IS MADE. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR. IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION SMC-GROUP APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) 3 271(1)(B) WERE BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE BOOK BY THE L EGISLATURE TO CURB THE TENDENCY OF DELAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BY NOT COMPLYI NG WITH THE NOTICES OF THE OFFICERS. SUCH DELAY RESULTS INTO UNNECESSARY WASTE OF TIME AND PUT THE CONCERNED OFFICERS IN HARASSMENT AS THEY HAVE TO RE COURSE THE ASSESSMENT IN SHORTER TIME FRAME. SUCH NON-COMPLIANCE CANNOT BE VIEWED LIGHTLY AND CAN ONLY BE PARDONED IF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE RECORD, IT EMERGES THAT NOWHERE THE ASSESS EES HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT REASONS TO HOLD THAT THEY WERE PREVENTED BY SUFFICI ENT CAUSE IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE E NTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, I SEE NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN IMPOSING THE RESPECTIVE PENALT IES U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE UPHELD. THUS, ALL THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH JULY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/07/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / // / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD