AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the orders dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-38 New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the penalty order dated 29.04.2018 passed by the ITO, Ward 21(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2006-07.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Further, no assistance has been rendered by the assessee in regard to the status of quantum appeal. Therefore, we have proceeded to deal with the matter ex parte qua the assessee.
ITA No.4848/Del/2019 (AY : 2006-07)
The facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act was framed in the instant case on 29.08.2014 at an income of Rs.92,36,500/-. The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings was dismissed against which the assessee filed further appeal before the ITAT which is stated to be still pending. The assessee requested the AO to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance in terms of the provisions of section 275 of the Act. The AO, however, passed an order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and has imposed a penalty of Rs.28,54,100/- The order has been served on the assessee on 20.04.2018.
The penalty has been levied by the Ld. AO with the following observations:-
“11.In view of the foregoing, it is established beyond doubt and crystal clear that the assessee has deliberately concealed his income and hence the provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) along with the explanations appended to this section read with section 274 of the IT Act, 1961 are attracted. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Maximum and minimum penalty imposable in this case is computed below:-
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Income on which tax sought to be evaded 92,36,500/- 2. Tax sought to be evaded 28,54,100/- 3. Minimum penalty leviable @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded 28,54,100/- 4. Maximum penalty leviable @ 300% of tax sought to be evaded 85,62,300 12.Minimum penalty of Rs.28,54,100/- is levied upon the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 after obtaining prior approval of the Addl.CIT Range-21, New Delhi communicated vide letter F.No.Addl.CIT/R-21/2017-18/1689 dated 28.03.2018.”
It was further confirmed by the first appellate authority with the following observations:-
“…….. The next plea of the appellant is that the penalty should have been kept in abeyance till the disposal of quantum appeal in the ITAT. For the sake of clarity, first Proviso to Section 275(1) is reproduced below:-
"Provided that no order of imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty shall be passed-
(a)Unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
(b)After the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or Supreme Court is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed;"
The above clearly states that the penalty order shall be passed within 6 months of the CIT(A)'s order. The same is the case in the present appeal. Therefore, the appellant's grounds is dismissed. On the basis of above discussion and case laws, the appeal is dismissed.”
In the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee having regard to the facts of the matter, we do not find any ambiguity in the order passed by the authorities below in levying penalty against the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A).
We find that the appeal being ITA No.967/Del/2017 for AY 2006-07 is a duplicate one, hence, the same is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.