2016 (7) TMI 1636 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - none was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notice - HELD THAT - From the casual approach of the assessee an inference can be drawn that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing before CIT(Appeal) on 08/05/2014. The assessee did not respond thereafter also the assessee was provided final opportunity for appearance or to file written submissions. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any submissions. It is clear from the attitude of the assessee that assessee has nothing to say. The reasons for levy of penalty has been elaborated in para 10 of the penalty order. Such type of casual approach of the assessee forces us not to take a lenient view. It is evidently clear that the assessee concealed its income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income therefore in the light of the decision in CIT vs A. Srenivas Pai 1999 (11) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT -This appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenging imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-appearance of the assessee during the appeals
The assessee did not appear for the appeals despite multiple notices and opportunities provided by the authorities. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) issued several notices, but the assessee failed to respond or attend the hearings. The final opportunity was given to the assessee to appear or submit written statements, but no action was taken. The casual approach of the assessee in not attending the proceedings indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals.

Issue 2: Penalty imposition and confirmation
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, citing reasons for the penalty imposition in detail. The penalty was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide any valid explanations or attend the hearings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct indicated a deliberate attempt to conceal income or provide inaccurate particulars of income, as per the decision in CIT vs A. Srenivas Pai (242 ITR 29)(Kerala). The Tribunal considered the totality of facts and the assessee's casual approach in deciding to dismiss the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all seven appeals by the assessee for Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The non-appearance of the assessee, coupled with the failure to provide any substantial defense or attend the proceedings, led to the confirmation of the penalties imposed. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities based on the assessee's lack of cooperation and the clear indication of income concealment or inaccurate reporting. The appeals were dismissed considering the totality of facts and the assessee's behavior throughout the proceedings.