Referred Sections:
Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Section 153C of the Act
Section 142(1) of the Act
Section 271(1)(b) of the Act
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `G', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14
Sad Bhawna Trust, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
A-22, Main Gali, Kundun Income Tax,
Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Cent. Circle-6, New Delhi
PAN :AADTS4076K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None
Respondent by Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR
Date of hearing 18.07.2019
Date of pronouncement 30.07.2019
ORDER
PER BENCH
The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against
separate orders dated 09/01/2017 for assessment years 2007-
08; 2008-09; 2009-10; 2010-11; 2011-12; 2012-13 and 2013-14
passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New
Delhi in relation to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for not
complying notices issued. A common issue of dispute is involved
in all the appeals in identical set of facts, and thus all these
appeals have been heard together and dispose off by way of this
consolidated order.
2. The grounds of appeal raised in all the appeals are identical
and thus, for brevity, grounds of appeal in ITA No.
2
ITA No.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
1482/del/2017 for assessment year 2007-08 are reproduced as
under:
1. That in view of facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.
CIT(A)-24 committed an error in confirming the penalty imposed by
the Assessing Officer without looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case and without providing reasonable
opportunity which is must in law as settled by various courts from
time to time.
2. That in view of facts and in the circumstances of the case it is
apparent that the order passed u/s 271 (l)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is
bad-in law, as there was no failure on the part of the appellant to
comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961.
3. That in view of facts and in the circumstances of the case it is
apparent that the order passed u/s 271 (1 )(b) of the I.T. Act,1961 is
bad-in law, as the Assessing Officer has neither discussed, nor
negated the reply filed by the appellant in response to the Penalty
Notice and without appreciating and acknowledging the facts of the
case.
4. That in view of facts and in the circumstances of the case it is
apparent that the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1 )(b) of the I.T. Act,
1961 is in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax
Act and of the relevant judicial pronouncement on the issue.
5. That the appellant crave to add, delete or modify any ground of
appeal at the time of hearing.
3. At the outset, we may like to submit that despite notifying
through registered post for hearing dated 15/07/2019, neither
anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment
was sought. Again assessee was notified and case was fixed for
hearing on 18/07/2019. On this date also, none attended on
behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the
appeal and thus we proceeded ex party qua the assessee.
4. Briefly stated facts of the case in assessment year 2007-08
are that during the course of search and seizure action under
3
ITA No.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short `the Act') at the
premises of "M/s FIIT JEE " group, which was carried on
17/12/2012, certain documents belonging to the assessee were
found and seized. Consequently, proceedings under section 153C
of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee on
11/03/2014. During the assessment proceedings under section
153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section
142(1) of the Act on 22/08/2014 calling for certain details. The
assessee sought extension for submitting the information on one
or another ground, but no information was submitted. The
Assessing Officer again issued another notice under section
142(1) on 07/10/2014 calling for the details; however, no
compliance of the same was also made. The assessee continued to
evade furnishing the details called for in the questionnaires. The
Assessing Officer has also noted that the assessee instead of
responding to the queries has stonewalled the enquiries by
raising various objections and insisting response of the Assessing
Officer on the same. In view of the non-compliance by the
assessee, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under
section 271(1)(b) of the Act for levy penalty of Rs.10,000/-for non-
compliance of the notices issued. The assessee did not make
compliance of this notice for levy of the penalty also. In view of
the circumstances, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.
10,000 in terms of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Before the Ld.
CIT(A), the assessee challenged levy of penalty and submitted that
the assessee has filed letter of adjournment from time to time
before the Assessing Officer and assessee had made due
compliance of all notices issued. In view of the controversy, the
Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced detailed date-wise chart of notices
4
ITA No.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
issued and response of the same by the assessee. In view of the
detailed chart of response, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty
observing as under:
"4.1.5 A reading of the facts as recounted in the table above, makes
it abundantly clear that the appellant has been stonewalling the
proceedings of assessment and has consistently evaded to give
questions to the detail questionnaire dated 22.08.2014, which
contained 16 questions asking for specific details, including queries
about the so-called scholarship funds which have been given from
the appellant's bank accounts to M/s FIIT JEE Ltd., it source and
mode of payment, and other details. This particular set of
transactions forms the only transactions between appellant and M/s
FIITJEE, and was the subject matter of enquiry by the A.O.. Apart
from stating that these transactions were done behind its back and
that its own bank account has been misused by FIITJEE, the
appellant has deliberately avoided to throw any further light on the
suspicion transactions. By doing so, it has avoided scrutiny of the
transactions by way of a series of adjournment petitions and a
series of letters consistently objecting to assumption of jurisdiction,
even after the Assessing Officer has provided a copy of satisfaction
note to it. It is not the duty of the Assessing Officer, nor the right of
the appellant that the A.O. must fully satisfy the appellant that
initiation of proceedings u/s 153C has been validly made, before the
appellant deigns to furnish replies to specific questions regarding its
accounts. It is abundantly clear that the appellant has been
deliberately avoiding to respond to the specific questions and thus
hampering investigations by the A.O.. Even the letter dated
18.02.2015, which it claims has been submitted before the
Assessing Officer ( purporting to contain replies to the questions
raised in the first questionnaire) bears no proof of the submission
before the A.O. This letter appears to be afterthought and crafted
specially to wriggle out of the penalty levied on it for non-compliance
to notice u/s 142(1). Even otherwise, the appellant has not
responded to queries of the A.O. raised vide dated 23.12.2014 and
05.02.2015. Under these circumstances, I am of the firm view that
the A.O. has rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1 )(b) for non-furnishing
of the information called for u/s 142(1). I therefore confirm the levy
of penalty."
5. Before us, the DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and
submitted that the assessee intentionally avoided furnishing of
the information without any reasonable cause and therefore Ld.
CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty.
5
ITA No.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
6. We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and perused
the order of the lower authorities. In terms of the section 142(1),
the Assessing Officer called for certain information for completion
of the assessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, but the
assessee had not provided those information and continued to
object the initiation of the proceeding in the case of the assessee.
This conduct of the assessee led to completion of the assessment
proceeding ex parte. In assessment proceedings, the role of the
Assessing Officer is both of the investigator and adjudicator. If the
assessee obstruct and create hurdles in the investigation process
of the Assessing Officer, true and complete facts may not be
available for adjudication and the adjudication would be on
incomplete facts. Not only the assessee stopped the Assessing
Officer for examining the issue in dispute judiciously in
assessment proceeding but also filed wrong information before
the Ld. CIT(A) claiming that it had complied notices issued by the
Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out one such
instance of letter dated 18/02/2015 and observed that said letter
bears no proof of submission before the Assessing Officer and
appears to be an afterthought and crafted especially to wriggle
out the penalty levied on it for non-compliance of notice under
section 142(1) of the Act. Before us, the assessee has not
represented and not rebutted this misconduct on the part of the
assessee. The assessee has not made out a case of any reasonable
cause for failure in furnishing the information before the
Assessing Officer. In view of the facts and circumstances, we
uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and
dismiss the grounds of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.
1482/Del/2017 for assessment year 2007-08.
6
ITA No.1482 to 1488/Del/2017
7. The facts and circumstances and issue in dispute in
remaining appeals are identical accordingly, to have consistency
in our decision, all the remaining appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 1483 to
1488/Del/2017 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2013-14
respectively are also dismissed.
8. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
[K.N. CHARY] [O.P. KANT]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 30th July, 2019.
RK/-[d.t.d.s]
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
|
