9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted 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 assessee was not aware of uploading of the impugned order of the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) and came to know only on 15.12.2021; that the AR of the assessee was busy with filing of return of income and engaged in tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act, and in between, time was taken for preparation for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned delay being caused due to reasonable cause assessee sought for condonation of delay. 3. Be that as it m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the appellate order u/s.205 of the Act without considering submission made by the appellant during the physical hearing before local jurisdictional CIT(A). 3. Theld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in contending that the appellant had not made any submission." 6. A perusal of orders of the lower authorities reveal that the assessee was issued with notice, which was served upon it, but he neither furnished 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above notices nor filed any explanation regarding noncompliance of the above notices. Considering the non-compliance, though sufficient and fair opportunity was given to the assessee, this office was left with no other alternative except to complete the assessment ex parte, u/s 144 of the IT Act, 1961 , on the basis of details and materials available on the record. For this purpose, show cause notice regarding finalizing assessment u/s 144 of the I T Act, was also issued to the assessee on 25.02.2016. But there was no reply from the assessee. Hence, the assessment to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, on the basis of material available on the record, was completed u/s 144 on 18.03.2016. Considering the non-cooperative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was given sufficient time to reply to the statutory notices for which, reasons best known to it, the assessee company did not furnish any kind of reply during the course of assessment proceedings and till the time of passing assessment Order u/s 144 on 18.03.2016. In absence of any replies from the assessee, it is crystal clear that assessee had purposefully failed to comply with the notices issued under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 196!. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact of the case, the undersigned has no alternative than to levy a penalty of Rs 30,000/- as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(b), upon the assessee. 7. The assessee thereafter filed appeal against levy of penalty to the NFAC/ld.CIT(A). Before him also, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal proceedings pending with the Income Tax Authorities against him or initiated at his instance. After filing the appeal or requesting for adjournment, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and not respond 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch offence penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, was that the company was in dire straits, that there were lot of recoveries being made and Directors of the company were absconding and all the employees had left and the company's business had closed down. But the fact is that, its director, Shri Bhavesh Chhatbar, has filed the appeal to the NFAC/ld.CIT(A) in form No.35 signing the said form for verification, and has also filed appeal before us, and he is the one who has filed affidavit explaining delay in filing the appeal. There appears to be a contradiction in the stand taken by the assessee that the notices were not responded because the directors were absconding. The fact, as is evident before us, shows that the Director Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
