2022 (12) TMI 1217 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even in the previous hearings none appeared in spite of service of notice to the assessee - HELD THAT - We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. As it is seen from the quantum appeal order 2017 (11) TMI 2014 - ITAT AHMEDABAD in assessee's own case for the very same Assessment Year 2010-11, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. In spite of as many as 22 opportunities given to the assessee by this Tribunal, the assessee has not come forward to conduct the appeal. There is no other material placed before us, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are also general in nature. In the absence of any material, we have no hesitation in confirming the concurrent findings of the Lower Authorities and thereby confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Despite multiple hearings, the Assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. The Revenue pointed out that the quantum appeal of the Assessee for the same Assessment Year was also dismissed earlier due to non-appearance. The Revenue argued that the penalty of Rs. 7,82,830/- should be confirmed as the Assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-representation or file a Miscellaneous Application within the specified time frame.

The Tribunal considered the materials on record and noted that the Assessee's quantum appeal for the same Assessment Year was dismissed earlier due to non-prosecution. The findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the levy of the penalty. The Commissioner upheld the addition of unexplained investments and deposits, indicating that the Assessee's financial affairs were disorganized. The Tribunal observed that the Assessee's explanations lacked corroborative value and were intentional, indicating a lack of bona fides. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents to support the decision to confirm the penalty.

Despite providing numerous opportunities, the Assessee failed to participate in the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal found no additional material presented by the Assessee to contest the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the concurrent findings of the Lower Authorities and confirmed the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, leading to the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 due to the Assessee's consistent non-appearance, lack of reasonable cause, and failure to provide substantive grounds to contest the penalty. The decision was based on the Assessee's disorganized financial affairs, intentional non-disclosures, and the absence of bona fides in the explanations provided.