9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the above notice and not filed the Return of Income. Therefore a notice under section 142[1] dated 12-09-2019 was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the time deposit in her bank account. As the assessee failed to respond to this notice, another notice under section 142[1] dated 16-10-2019 was issued requesting the assessee to show cause as to why an amount of time deposit to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs in Bank of India should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. As there was no response against this notice assessing officer passed an ex-parte assessment order making an addition of Rs. 12,90,000/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271[1][c] and 271[1][b] of the Act. 2.1. During penalty proceedings u/s. 271[1][b], notice dated 21.11.2019 was served on the assessee, fixing the case for hearing on 06-12-2019, but there was no response from the assessee. During the faceless assessment proceedings the assessee filed her reply in ITBA Portal and follows: "... 1. "In this case the AR of the assessee Sh. PM Parmar appeared before the then Assessing Officer and explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approach the AO to inquire whether her case is being represented or not." 2.2. The reply of the assessee was considered by the A.O., but not found satisfactory as the assessee does not offer any relevant documents/ proofs or any genuine reason for non-compliance of the statutory notice issued u/s. 142[1] of the Act on 12-09-2019. Further pendency of the quantum appeal before CIT[A] cannot be a ground for dropping penalty under section 271[1][b] for noncompliance of statutory notice issued u/s. 142[1] of the Act and thereby imposed penalty for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 2.3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Ld CIT[A] after considering in detailed the submissions of the assessee and deliberate non-compliance of statutory notices, confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271[1][b] and dismissed the appeal observing as follows: ".... Considering the facts of the case, it is held that appellant has not complied with the notice dated 12.09.2019 issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2012-13. The Assessing Officer clearly mentions in its penalty order dated 30.12.2021 (refer Sl. No. 3 at Page.1) that, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . PM Parmar....", whom she has duly authorized to act as her authorized representative (AR) and to appear before the department on her behalf and now cannot heap the blame on the AR and absolve itself absolutely of all responsibility and accountability as laid down by the Act on an assessee. There is no infirmity in the penalty order and it is found that the AO has rightly treated the penalty proceedings separately and decided the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 as per law. 2. During appellant proceedings, appellant uploaded application under rule 46A for admission of additional evidence and attached copy of bank pass book, which has no relevancy with penalty appeal proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessment in the appellant's case was also completed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. ex-parte assessment which means the assessee did not co-operate with the AO during the assessment proceedings and did not submit the relevant documents or proof etc. when it opportunity to do so and hence, the same cannot be accepted now. 3. Considering the above mentioned facts, reasons and circumstances and in law, appeal of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. As the assessee failed to comply with the statutory notices issued by the assessing officer the same as resulted in passing an exparte assessment order. As the assessee failed to comply any of the statutory notices and not given any explanation for the non-compliance which has warranted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, the same does not require any interference. Thus the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the submissions and Paper Book filed by the assessee. Though the assessee plead that by inadvertent mistake he has uploaded the written submissions before Ld. NFAC on quantum appeal and also filed additional documents, therefore prays to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC in the Interest of Principle of Natural Justice. This argument of the assessee does not hold in good. Since the Ld. NFAC has categorically observed that the assessee failed to furnish reasons for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Further the assessee has not filed her Return of Income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Further in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
