Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Kiran Pal Singh, Meerut vs Assessee on 25 January, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : 'D' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A No. 742/Del/10
Asstt. Year - 2006-07
Shri Kiran Pal Singh, Vs. ITO
207, Devi Nagar, Ward - 1 (3)
S.K. Road, Meerut.
Meerut.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri. V.K. Goel, Advocate
Respondent by: Shri Maneesh Bahuguna ,Sr. DR
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM:
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 25th January, 2010 passed for asstt. year 2006-07. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 271(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act.
2 ITA No. 742/Del-2010
Asstt. year 2006-07
2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a civil contractor. He has filed his return of income on 30th October, 2006 declaring net income of Rs. 1,00,000/- from business of civil contract. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2007 which was served upon the assessee on 19.10.2007. The assessee did not comply with the notice issued by the AO. The AO thereafter issued 7 more notices in a row u/s 142(1) of the Act which was required to be complied on 25.6. 2008, 17.7.2008, 2.9.2008, 14.11.2008, 24.11.2008, 28.11.2008, 10.12.2008. The assessee did not attend the proceeding before the AO and therefore AO had issued a show cause notice inviting an explanation of assessee as to why penalty u/s 271 (1)(b) be not imposed. The assesse did not respond to this notice also. The Ld. AO has imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for ignoring the notices issued u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act. He has completed assessment u/s 144 according to his best judgment.
3. Dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and contended that notice u/s 143(2) was received by his wife who is an illiterate lady. According to the assessee he has never received the notice because he always remained out of the home in connection with his business. Ld. CIT(A) did not find 3 ITA No. 742/Del-2010 Asstt. year 2006-07 the explanation of assessee as a plausible explanation more so according to the Ld. CIT(A) such explanation does not constitute a reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee.
4. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated his contention as was raised before the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that there was a dispute between the assessee and the landlord who has registered a case against the assessee and due to this reason assessee remained out of the house for most of the time particularly for six months in that period. Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of AO.
5. We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The AO has not only issued the notice u/s 143(2) for which he initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(b) of the Act but he had issued seven more notices u/s 142 (1) in a row. All these notices remained un complied with. The assessee is a contractor furnished his return he is well versed about position that income tax proceedings are required to be attended by him. We could appreciate the explanation of assessee that notice served u/s 143(2) was not brought to his notice by his wife because of her illness, if assessee has subsequently participated the assessment proceeding. He did not bother 4 ITA No. 742/Del-2010 Asstt. year 2006-07 to respond any of the notice. It is not the case of assessee that notice was not served upon his residence. It only indicate that he did not take these notices seriously and did not deem it fit to appear before the AO in response of these notices. This is only a corroborating circumstance for appreciating the conduct of assessee. Considering all these aspects we are of the opinion that Ld. AO has rightly imposed the penalty upon the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is rejected.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.7.2010.
Sd/-
[G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [RAJPAL YADAV]
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23.7.2010
Veena
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Deputy Registrar,
ITAT