2019 (5) TMI 552 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms penalty for inaccurate income details under Income Tax Act; stresses procedural compliance & active participation.

Smt. Shobha Lakshman Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -7, Bengaluru

The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for inaccurate ... Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - non filing of compulsory e-filing of appeal despite notice - assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal on the date of hearing - no request for further date - HELD THAT:- Neither the assessee nor her representative made any efforts to e-file the appeal, even though it was brought to their notice that e-filing of appeal is compulsory from 01.03.2016. It is to be observed here that the assessee had filed returns electronically and as such the husband of the appellant who represented before the Appellate Authority could not have stated that he was not aware of e-filing of the appeal. When the Appellate Authority brought to the notice of the assessee that e-filing of appeal is compulsory and when the assessee had failed to file e-appeal even after assessee was made known that e-filing is compulsory, we find no error or illegality in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as invalid by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal noting the absence of the assessee and observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the case dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee was out of country and she returned to India only on 08.01.2019 and as such she could not be present before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. If that is so, the assessee could have made arrangements to represent her before the Tribunal by any authorized representative or she could have addressed a letter seeking for another date of hearing as she was out of country. The assessee failed to make arrangement to represent her before the Tribunal and failed to seek for another date of hearing. When there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution observing that the assessee had no interest in prosecuting the case. There are no bonafides and the appellant cannot take benefit of ones own inaction. Hence, we are of the view, that the orders passed by the ITAT is neither perverse nor erroneous. No substantial question of law would arise. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for inaccurate particulars of income.2. Validity of appeal filed in paper form before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite mandatory e-filing requirement.3. Dismissal of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence.Analysis:1. The appellant-assessee filed returns for the assessment year 2013-2014 electronically but was subjected to scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Authority found inaccuracies in the particulars of income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2013-2014. The Assessing Authority disallowed deductions claimed by the assessee, leading to a tax liability of &8377; 82,94,720. The appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in paper form was dismissed as invalid due to mandatory e-filing requirements. The subsequent appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the case.2. The Appellate Authority informed the assessee of the compulsory e-filing requirement for appeals under Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Despite being notified, the assessee failed to e-file the appeal and the husband of the assessee, who represented her, claimed ignorance of the e-filing procedure. The Appellate Authority rightfully dismissed the appeal as invalid due to non-compliance with the e-filing mandate. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear or make arrangements for representation, citing lack of interest in prosecuting the case. The assessee's absence on the hearing date, without seeking an alternative date or representation, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted the lack of effort on the part of the assessee to ensure representation, indicating a disregard for the legal proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was deemed appropriate given the assessee's failure to actively participate in the proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and actively participating in legal proceedings. The lack of interest shown by the assessee in prosecuting the case led to the dismissal of the appeal, with no substantial question of law arising for consideration.