2016 (7) TMI 825 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - defaults of not complying with notices for Assessment Year 2011-12 - Held that - The contentions of ld. DR carry merits inasmuch as the impugned penalties were imposed on 19-12-2012 much prior to the framing of assessments on 17-1-2014. In view thereof the case laws cited by the assessee are distinguishable. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any understanding with ld. AO as tried to be canvassed. Besides in any case adjournment applications ought to have been filed citing any reason which existed. Non filing of adjournment applications and non attendance of proceedings cannot be viewed lightly. The assessee has thus failed to show any demonstrable reasons of sufficient cause for non compliance. In view thereof see no infirmity in the orders of lower authorities imposing the impugned penalties. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by six different assessees were consolidated as they pertained to the same group and raised identical issues. The assessee's representative requested individual cases to be taken up first due to scheduling constraints, leading to non-attendance at proceedings and subsequent penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer.

2. The assessee argued that the penalty was unjust as the assessment order was not passed within the stipulated time despite all required submissions being made. Citing precedents where penalties were deleted when assessments were done under section 143(3) instead of 144, the assessee contended that non-compliance was deemed waived in such cases.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the penalty was rightly imposed due to the assessee's failure to comply with notices. Emphasizing the seriousness of survey proceedings, it was contended that penalties under section 271(1)(b) were necessary to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.

4. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found no merit in the assessee's contentions, emphasizing the lack of reasonable cause for non-compliance and the importance of adhering to statutory notices. The penalty imposition was upheld as the penalties were imposed before the assessments were completed.

5. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, noting that the penalties were imposed before the assessments were finalized. The failure to provide demonstrable reasons for non-compliance and the absence of adjournment applications led to the dismissal of the assessee's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the penalties imposed for non-compliance with notices, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory obligations and the timing of penalty imposition before assessment finalization.