9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of delay on 26.02.2021, none is appearing for / or on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal on several dates fixed for hearing of the captioned appeals. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was caused due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee and therefore not worthy of condonation. Thus we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 1005 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos. 164 , 165 & 166/Del/2021 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2023 - SHRI G. S. PANNU , HON BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri Sanjay Kumar , Sr. DR ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA , JM The three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida dated 27.03.2018 pertaining to the Assessment Years ( AYs ) 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Since the issues are common, all the three appeals were heard together and accordingly the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in all the three AYs:- 1. That the penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of TDS. The assessee s explanation that none of the sellers were non resident and that the proceedings initiated under section 201(1)/201(1A) have become barred by limitation were also found to be not tenable. Accordingly, vide his order dated 28.03.2017 passed under section 271C(1)(a) the Ld. Addl. CIT imposed a total penalty of Rs. 12,36,000/- on account of assessee s failure to deduct as well as deposit TDS in to the Central Govt. account for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 as indicated in the table below: Financial Year Amount Paid by the deductor to Smt Nidhi Raman Non deduction u/s 201(1) (Amt of TDS u/s 195) Total Amount of non-deduction of TDS. Amount of penalty to be levied u/s 271C(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. A B C D 2003-04 1,97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71C has to be initiated and levied by Joint Commissioner of Income tax on receiving a reference in this regard from the AO. The appellant has not disputed the fact that the reference in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings were received from the AO on 25.04.2016. On receiving such information, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, International taxation initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the Act by issuing notice on 03.05.2016. For all purposes, this date i.e. 03.05.2016 is the date of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271C of the Act. 4.5 Provisions of section 275(1)(c) is as below: (c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. 4.6 There is no ambiguity in the above provision and it is evident the penalty can be levied up to 6 months from the date of initiation of penalty proceedings or till the last date of the financial year. In the present case, the notice for penalty proceedings u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstance. The appellant is engaged with the sell/purchase transaction of an immovable property. Before such deal is finalized there must be sufficient enquiry about the property and its owners. When the relevant owner is NRI, this fact should normally appear in the first stage of enquiries about the property its owners. Transfer of funds, personal availability of NRI owner on the date of sale before the Registering Authority and other formalities to be completed at the time of sale deed registry require more diligence in the case when one of the person, buyer or seller, is an NRI. So, the submission of the appellant that it was not aware about the NRI status of the seller is without any substance. Hence, the appellant has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause for any failure to deduct u/s 195 of the Act. 4.11 In view of the above discussion, the penalty levied for Rs. 40664/-, Rs. 2,02,951/- and Rs.9,92,385/- for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively is confirmed. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The registry noticed that all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it enquired about the appeal No. from the office of the Tribunal and came to know that assessee s appeal for for all the AYs under consideration had not been received by the Tribunal from the courier till date. On inquiry from DTDC Courier Company, they could not find out anything regarding the non-delivery of courier to the Tribunal. It is stated in the application that the assessee was under bonafide belief that its appeals have been delivered to the Tribunal by the Courier Company. By way of evidence, the assessee has submitted receipt of courier. 9. It is apparently clear from the above facts stated by the assessee itself that the assessee did not make any efforts to pursue the appeals till it decided to settle these appeals under VSV Scheme to end the litigation. It was only after passing of more than nearly two and half years that the assessee realised that its appeals have not been filed before the Tribunal. In our humble view, the assessee could have at least enquired with the Tribunal after sending the appeals via courier on 07.05.2018 whether it has received them or not and taken the appeal nos. Instead, the assesee chose to sit silently under the guise of bonafide be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
