9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the due process of law. We therefore see no reason to differ from the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) s finding and accordingly uphold the order of the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.30,000/-. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected. - ITA No.14/RJT/2022 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2022 - Smt.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Smt. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the NFAC ] dated 23.11.2021passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act for short] for the Asst.Year2013-14. The appeal is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 2. It has been pointed out by the Registry that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation i.e.31 days delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee through its director has filed its delay condonation petition-cum-affidavit. In the application, the assessee interalia pleaded that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished details required nor attended the office during assessment proceedings. The assessment accordingly was framed ex parte under section 144 of the Act and notice thereafter was served to the assessee for levy of penalty on account of noncompliance of notice served on the assessee. Reply was filed by the assessee stating that the assessee-company was facing tremendous financial problems and because of vigorous recovery proceedings being done on it the Directors of the company were absconding and the business of the company was closed down, and therefore, the notices and summons remained unserved. It was stated there was reasonable cause for non-compliance, and accordingly, it was pleaded that the penalty proceedings be dropped. The ld.AO however did not accept the contentions of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs.30,000/-. Relevant portion of the order of the AO from para 2 to 4 is as under: 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, several notices, as mentioned below, were issued and served upon the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the details as called for, but, the assessee neither furnished the details nor attended the office: Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 142(1) was out of reasonable reason stated as under: The assessee company has been facing tremendous financial problem and due to same could not pay outside liability and same from vigorously recoveries the directors of the company have absconded and the company's business was closed down with no employees or any responsible persons. The whereabouts of any directors were not known even notices, summons returned unserved. Under those circumstances, it was impossible to comply with the notices u/s 142(1). In view of the above stated reasons, it is submitted that non-compliance was not intentioned but due to reasonable reason stated herein above and in view of the same the present penalty proceedings may kindly be dropped and oblige . Further notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(b) was also issued on 21.07.2016 but no reply was received. 4. The reply of the assessee is perused but the same is not acceptable. The reply of the assessee company and seeking of frequent adjournments is not acceptable considering the time-barring assessment proceedings. From the above discussion it is crystal clear that though assessee was given sufficient time to reply to the statutory notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the notices at all. 8.5. The appellant is not a simple or a rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The Appellant needs to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. 8.6. In this case, I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Moddus Media Pvt Ltd vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt Ltd {RFA 497/201 dated 18 May 2017). 8.7. The appellant has not complied to notices issued during appellate proceedings and has brought nothing on record to rebut the finding of the Ld Assessing Officer. Hence, there is no cause to interfere with the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer passed u/s 271(1)(b). 8. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is now come up in appeal before us. 9. We have noted that the assessee has remained non-compliant in all proceedings, whether relating to the quantum proceedings or penalty proceedings however being vigilant only to the extent and only for the purpose of taking action against the orders passed at various stages. The assessee, we find, did not participate in the assessment proceedings and ex parte order under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
