9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 961 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(b) - AO issued a notice u/s. 142(1) - jurisdiction of the AO by holding that this penalty proceedings has been initiated after the insertion of Section 292BB - HELD THAT - The assessee has given his reply dated 06.10.2008 that he has not received the earlier notices and given the new address of his Advocate and he further sent a letter dated 10.10.2008 and argued that having not received the earlier notices u/s. 142(1) and there could not be any proceedings pending under the Act before the AO meaning thereby the assessee is having the knowledge of all the notices which has already been served upon the assessee and he was watching the proceedings through his counsel/AR. Assessee has also requested for various adjournments which was given by the Assessing Officer. Sh. Sachin Kumar, CA/Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the AO and file his Power of Attorney and requested for various adjournments which were granted by the AO, but in spite of the various adjournments given by the AO to assessee, no return of income was filed by the assessee in spite of the various opportunities given by the AO to the Authorised Representative of the assessee and lastly the AR of the assessee shows his inability and therefore, the AO has rightly imposed the penalty in dispute and the Ld. CIT(A) has also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. Non-cooperation of the assessee before the authorities below, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled for any leniency in this matter. Therefore, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice and impose penalty under section 142(1) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the notice served under section 142(1) and imposition of penalty for non-filing of income tax return. 3. Applicability of section 271F and section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. 4. Observations made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) without material evidence on record. 5. Compliance with the legal procedures and non-filing of income tax return by the Assessee. Detailed analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice and impose a penalty of ?10,000 under sections 142(1) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued that the officer who issued the notice was not authorized to perform the functions of the Assessing Officer, rendering the notice and penalty order invalid. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, citing the insertion of Section 292BB in the statute at the time of penalty imposition, thereby dismissing the Assessee's plea regarding jurisdiction. 2. The issue of the validity of the notice served under section 142(1) and the imposition of penalty for non-filing of the income tax return was also raised. The Assessee claimed that the notice was not served, making the penalty order invalid. However, the Tribunal found that the notice was duly served on the Assessee, who had acknowledged receipt through their Authorized Representative. Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments granted, the Assessee failed to file the return of income, leading to the imposition of the penalty, which was upheld by the CIT(A). 3. The Assessee contended that the penalty for non-filing of the return should have been under section 271F of the Act, not section 271(1)(b). However, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that section 271(1)(b) was applicable in this case, given the Assessee's persistent failure to comply with the notices and requirements under the Act. 4. The Assessee raised concerns about the observations made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) without substantial material or evidence on record. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee's non-cooperation and failure to file the return despite numerous opportunities justified the penalty imposed, and the observations made were based on the Assessee's conduct throughout the proceedings. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the Assessee's lack of cooperation and non-compliance with legal procedures. The Tribunal found no grounds to grant leniency to the Assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This judgment was delivered on 25th January 2021 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi.
|
