2016 (12) TMI 804 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c)- Held that - Admittedly, the assessee has acted in total disregard of the statutory obligations and has not co-operated in the assessment proceedings and has driven the Assessing Officer for making the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee had also courted the penalty u/s. 271B as well as the penalty u/s. 271(1)(e) which were also appealed against before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the same. Thus there is clear and categorical finding by both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee acted in total disregard of the statutory obligations and was callous in his approach to the statutory notices issued and there was failure to comply with such notices. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of both the Assessing Officer as well as of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same as correct and in accordance with law. Thus all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2002-03.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 190 days, and the assessee submitted a condonation petition citing reasons for the delay. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found sufficient cause for the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

2. Grounds of Appeal Raised by Assessee:
The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on various grounds, including the assessment being made on an estimate basis, lack of seized documents for penalty proceedings, excessive quantum of penalty, and the proceedings being barred by limitation. The assessee also argued that the penalty should be set aside based on the Tribunal's earlier order regarding penalty proceedings under a different section.

3. Assessment and Penalty Proceedings:
The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to comply with statutory notices. The penalty amount was determined at ?10,31,586, which was approved by the higher authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty after considering the income concealed and directed the penalty to be three times the tax sought to be evaded.

4. Arguments and Decision on Penalty:
The assessee contended that part of the income for the assessment year 2002-03 was already included in a previous Block Assessment order, and the penalty was excessive. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting the assessee's disregard for statutory obligations, non-cooperation in assessment proceedings, and failure to comply with notices. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), dismissing all grounds raised by the assessee.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2002-03. The decision was based on the assessee's failure to cooperate in the assessment process and comply with statutory requirements, leading to the confirmation of the penalty by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the specified assessment year.