Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Jayantibhai Dayhabhai Patel,, Surat vs Acit,Circle-8,, Surat on 5 May, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "D" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2333/Ahd/2013
(Assessment Year:2006-07)
Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel
B/h. Moti Bahucharji Mandir,
Ved Road, Surat- 395004 Appellant
Vs.
The ACIT, Cricele-8, Surat Respondent
PAN: BHRPP4527J
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R.
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Om Prakash Meena, Sr. D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 28.04.2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 05.05.2017
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2006-07 emanates against the CIT(A)-V, Surat's order dated 20.08.2013, passed in appeal no. CAS/V/46/2012-13, upholding Assessing Officer's action imposing penalty ITA No. 2333/Ahd/2013 (Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel vs. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 -2- of Rs.20,000/- in order dated 27.06.2012, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
2. We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)'s order under challenge discusses relevant facts, Assessing Officer's conclusion and assessee's submission with regard to the impugned penalty imposed for failure to comply with Section 142(1) and Section 143(2) notices as under:
4. "During the course of the assessment proceedings, thereafter notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 23.03.2011 was issued for reopening of the assessment.
The assessee failed to file return in response to the above notice issued. Notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued on 17.06.2011, 30.06.2011, 21.07.2011 & 16.08.2011 calling for various details. However the assessee failed to attend and file the details called for. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued on 03.11.2011 & 25.11.2011 calling upon the assessee to attend on 11.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 respectively and furnish the details called for attended the filed any adjournment letter or submission. The scrutiny assessment order was finalized u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act on 20.12.2011 determining total income Rs. 80,60,975/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) was also initiated. However assessee failed to fife any reply to notice issued u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act on 20.12.2011. Assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the It Act for two defaults committed by the assessee for failing to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act from time to time. In response to the penalty show cause notice issued u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act, the assessee submitted vide letter dated 09.02.2012 filed on 10.05.2012 that the penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal before CIT(A). The AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the two defaults committed by the assessee for failing to comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act."
Submissions of the Appellant:
5. During the appellate proceedings, the A.R. of the appellant attended and gave verbal submissions and the case was heard. The appellant submitted verbally that the assessee was undergoing lot of pressure due to high demands etc. and therefore could not comply with the notices.
DECISION 6.1 have considered the Penalty order as well as the submissions of the appellant, "he Grounds of appeal- Ground No. 1 pertains to levying penalty of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the perusal of the details it is observed that the appellant was provided several opportunities ITA No. 2333/Ahd/2013 (Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel vs. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 -3- during the assessment proceedings and the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 17.06.2011, 30.06.2011, 21.07.2011 and 16.08.2011. But no compliance was made. Thereafter, further notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 03.11.2011 and 25.11.2011 but no compliance was made. The assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Further neither had the appellant attended nor sought adjournment or filed submission in compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. No reason is given in the appellant's reply filed as to why the appellant failed to comply with the terms of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act which can be considered as reasonable cause. The aforesaid facts prove that the appellant willfully and deliberately did not comply with statutory notices and assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 20,000/- for willful and deliberate non compliance as the appellant failed to comply without any reasonable cause. The Patna High Court in its judgment has pronounced as following which is very relevant in the facts of the case:-
"The onus was on the assessee to answer the charge of having failed to comply with the notice u/s 142(1). The words of section 271(1 )(b) that if the revenue is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause, failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1), he shall be liable to penalty are rather crucial, /f was obvious therefore, that the assessee was required to show reasonable cause. That was a matter within the special knowledge of the assessee. It must be added that in the instant penalty preceding as well the assessee took no steps to establish that there was any reasonably cause for not complying with the notice under section 142. Despite the findings in the assessment and,-he registration proceedings, one would have been inclined to consider whether there was any reasonable cause or not but entire record showed that no effort worth the name was made by the assessee to show that there was any reasonable cause. "CIT(A) V/S Standard Mercantile Co (1986) 160 ITR 61.3 (PAT) Hence, the levy of penalty of Rs.20,000/- is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal is dismissed.
3. Shri Patel vehemently contends that both the lower authorities have erred in invoking the impugned penal provision. We proceed in this backdrop to notice that the assessee has nowhere explained the relevant reasons of his non appearance or non assistance to the Assessing Officer in the course of the re-assessment in question framed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2011. The very factual position continued before the Assessing Officer in penalty order as well as in the lower appellate order wherein the assessee again could not explain even a single instance of non ITA No. 2333/Ahd/2013 (Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel vs. AC IT) A.Y. 2006-07 -4- appearance triggering the penalty in question. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)'s conclusion extracted hereinabove affirming the impugned penalty.
4. This assessee's appeal is dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 05th day of May, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-
(PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 05/05/2017
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आय!
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।