Tribunal upholds penalties, dismisses appeals, condones delay, and rejects additional evidence. Profit determination upheld.

The tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 271(1)(b), 271A, and 271F, while deleting the penalty under Section 271B. The tribunal dismissed appeals for non-compliance with notices, failure to maintain books of accounts, and failure to furnish the return of income. The delay in appeals was condoned, but additional evidence was rejected as it did not impact the profit computation. The profit determination at 10% of gross receipts was upheld. The order was pronounced on 30/09/2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b)
2. Levy of penalty under Section 271A
3. Levy of penalty under Section 271B
4. Levy of penalty under Section 271F
5. Condonation of delay and admission of additional evidence

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(b):
The assessee was penalized under Section 271(1)(b) for failing to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1). Despite multiple notices and summons, the assessee did not respond. The assessee argued that the notices were not received and sought a stay on penalty proceedings. However, the tribunal found that the notices were duly sent to the correct address and the assessee's non-compliance was habitual. The tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee did not establish any reasonable cause for non-compliance as required under Section 273B.

2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271A:
The assessee was penalized under Section 271A for not maintaining books of accounts as required under Section 44AA. The assessee claimed that books were maintained in Tally Software but could not be reconciled due to a crashed hard disk. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide reasonable cause for non-compliance and upheld the penalty.

3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271B:
The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had levied penalties under both Section 271A and Section 271B for the same years. Citing judicial precedents, the tribunal held that if books of accounts are not maintained, the question of audit does not arise, and thus, penalty under Section 271B should not be imposed. The tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 271B, stating that the penalty for non-maintenance of books under Section 271A was sufficient.

4. Levy of Penalty under Section 271F:
The assessee was penalized under Section 271F for failing to furnish the return of income. The tribunal found that the notices were correctly sent to the assessee's address and that the assessee did not establish any reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the penalty.

5. Condonation of Delay and Admission of Additional Evidence:
The appeals for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were delayed by 70, 70, and 139 days, respectively. The tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's financial difficulties and lack of legal assistance. However, the tribunal rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, stating that the conditions under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules were not met. The tribunal found that the additional evidence did not materially impact the profit computation by the Assessing Officer and upheld the profit determination at 10% of gross receipts.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed all the appeals, upholding the penalties under Sections 271(1)(b), 271A, and 271F, while deleting the penalty under Section 271B. The tribunal also rejected the additional evidence and upheld the profit determination by the Assessing Officer. The order was pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2020.

---