M/S Krishna Behari Agarwal, Kanpur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.296/LKW/2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer is sustainable where the assessee neither appeared on the notified dates nor shows that its letters responding to those notices were received by the Assessing Officer before the hearing dates; a letter sent by post shortly before or on the hearing date, without proof of receipt in time, does not amount to compliance. Where an assessee has repeatedly failed to appear in response to notices in both the assessment and penalty proceedings, the quantum of penalty imposed for such default is not to be reduced on grounds of leniency, since deleting the penalty in such circumstances would undermine the statutory requirement to comply with the notices of the Income-tax authorities.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short "the Act") on account of non-compliance of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
2. On a careful perusal of record, we find that the Assessing Officer has issued a notice to the assessee for appearance on 30.4.2012, but this notice was not complied with by the assessee. The assessee, however, sent a letter on 30.4.2012 at noon by registered post and on account of non-compliance of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act and issued show cause notice on 1.5.2012 for its compliance or appearance on 7.5.2012. The assessee again did not appear on the date fixed i.e. :-2-:
7.5.2012 instead he again sent a letter by speed post on 5.5.2012. There is no evidence on record that the letters sent by the assessee was received by the Assessing Officer before the date of hearing. The conduct of the assessee shows that he is totally non-cooperative to the Assessing Officer and he has no respect for the authorities. Since the assessee never appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer either in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings, we are of the view that no lenient view can be taken on the assessee, as if the penalty is deleted, a message will go to the public at large that there is no need to make compliance of the notices of the Income-tax authorities. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the penalty, deserves to be confirmed and accordingly we confirm the same.
3. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.
Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED:26th June, 2015 JJ:1706
Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free