SATWINDER KAUR,SANGRUR V. .ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

ITA 301/CHANDI/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Satwinder Kaur against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward Sangrur, for non-compliance with statutory notices during the assessment proceedings for the year 2012-13. The ITO issued three notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee failed to comply with. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and confirmed the penalty, citing the lack of compliance and satisfactory explanation from the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469860 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJEET KAUR
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 274

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च\u000fडीगढ़ \u0013यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च\u000fडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC” CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH:HYBRID MODE \u001aी \u001bव म संह यादव, लेखा सद$य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 301/CHD/2023 \u000eनधा\u0012रण वष\u0012 / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Satwinder Kaur W/o Shri Bakshish Singh Rampura Basti, House No. 36, Ward No. 5, Sangrur बनाम The ITO, Ward Sangrur \u0018थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BYUPK9570J अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent \u000eनधा\u0012 रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : None राज\u0018व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 18/12/2024 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi dt. 16/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the limited issue relates to levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. Further, from the perusal of the records, it is noted 2 that the appeal was filed way back in May 2023 and thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time without any hearing or representation on behalf of the assessee. It was therefore decided to proceed with the matter and decide based on material available on the record. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Ld. AO during the course of penalty proceedings, had observed that during the Assessment proceedings, for the A.Y. 2012-13, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the appellant on 26.06.2019, 12.11.2019 and 20.11.2019. However, the appellant had failed to comply with the said statutory notices issued. Thereafter, based on the material available on record, assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was finalized by the AO on 28.11.2019 & for non- compliance of statutory notices, a notice u/s. 271(1)(b) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant on 28.11.2019 to show cause why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also further opportunity was accorded to the appellant to explain vide notice dated 09.07.2021 and in response to the said notice, the appellant vide her e- communication dated 17.07.2021 stated that: \".....In reference to the subject cited above, it is submitted that the above noted assessee is in the receipt of notice по. 1034109492(1) dated 09.07.2021 in regard to show cause notice for penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is submitted that the above noted assessee has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Patiala vide appeal no. CIT (A), Patiala/10346/2019-20 and the same is pending for adjudication till date. Further in addition to the above, it is submitted that no notice was received by the above noted assessee for hearing, hence the assessee has not violated any provisions of the Law. Further submitted that the above noted assessee is likely to succeed in the above noted appeal on account of Legal as well as factual matrix of the case and since the appeal filed before the Higher Authority in pending for adjudication, it is requested that the penalty proceedings may kindly be kept in abeyance till the adjudication of the above noted appeal.....\" 3 3.1 The reply of the appellant was considered but not found acceptable to the AO. The AO was of the view that because the appellant had failed to provide any satisfactory reply showing the genuine circumstances for non compliance of statutory notices issued during the assessment proceedings, therefore, only on the basis of appeal filed by the appellant, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, cannot be kept in abeyance. Considering the above facts, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for the three defaults (penalty for each default being Rs. 10,000/-) on the appellant as per the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings and the same read as under: “7.2.2. The facts of the case are considered and it is seen that despite several opportunities, the appellant has failed to submit anything in his favour nor has he submitted any document, evidence etc rebutting the order of Ld. AO. Further, as per the reply quoted by the Ld. AO, the appellant has pleaded that as the appeal is pending before CIT(A), Patiala, hence this appeal should be kept pending. This contention of the appellant is considered and it is noted that proceeding u/s. 271(1)(b) are independent proceedings and may not necessary wait for the decision in the substantial case. Hence, this contention is rejected. The second contention of the appellant was that no notice was received and hence the appellant has not violated any provisions of law. From the clear noting of the AO in the penalty order, it is seen that statutory notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the appellant on 26.6.2019, 12.11.2019 and 20.11.2019. Thus the contention of the appellant that notices were not received by him, is not acceptable and is rejected. In view of the above discussion of the facts and circumstances, as the appellant has brought nothing on record to rebut the findings of Ld. AO, hence grounds raised by the appellant are rejected and the order of the AO is confirmed in this regard.” 5. The Ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities and it was submitted that there is complete non compliance to various notices issued by the AO and therefore it is a fit case for levy of penalty and which has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4 6. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on the record, I find that there is no justifiable basis to interfere with the order of the lower authorities as it is evident that the AO has issued three notices during the course of assessment proceedings however, there has been total non compliance on the part of the assessee nor any explanation has been furnished as to reason for non- compliance to the notices so issued and therefore in light of the same, order so passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.12.2024) Sd/- \u001bव म संह यादव (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) लेखा सद$य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 23.12.2024. आदेश क! \u000eत,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु/त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु/त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय \u000eत\u000eन4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च6डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड\u0012 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "