2023 (2) TMI 791 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Dismissed for Penalties & Additions Upheld by Tribunal

Shri Ashokumar Devjibhai Patel Versus DCIT, Cir-Morbi

The appeals by the assessee against penalties under section 271(1)(b) for Asst. Year 2016-17 and orders in quantum proceedings under section 143(3) for ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, and in the absence of any representation the concurrent finding of both the authorities below that the assessee was unable to demonstrate reasonable cause for non compliance with notices issued remains uncontroverted. We have no other option therefore but to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Addition made on account of unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- As authorities below have given concurrent finding of fact that the assessee has failed to establish genuineness of the loan allegedly received by it from one Shri Rohit N.Patel. In the absence of any representation from the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record to support the case of the assessee, the concurrent findings of the authorities below remain uncontroverted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition accordingly calls for no interference. The ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Invocation of section 115BBE - addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was made by the authorities below u/s 68 and provision of section 115BBE was invoked for computing the tax liability on this addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has noted that invocation of section 115BBE was proper. In the absence of any representation from the assessee to counter the finding of the CIT(A) we are constrained to confirm the order of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject this ground of appeal No.2(B) of the assessee. CIT(A) directing the AO to bring to tax all income pertaining to the TDS deducted and claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the absence of material on record to and for want of representation from the assessee, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid direction of the Ld.CIT(A). In fact the Ld.CIT(A) has in all fairness allowed entire TDS credit to be given to the assessee but at the same time directed all income pertaining to the said TDS to be brought to tax. We see no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Issues involved:1. Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(b) for Asst. Year 2016-17.2. Appeal against order in quantum proceedings under section 143(3) for Asst. Year 2017-18.Analysis:1. Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(b) for Asst. Year 2016-17: - The assessee failed to comply with notices during assessment proceedings, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b). - The assessee claimed non-compliance due to being out of town, but the explanation was not substantiated. - The penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. - The assessee did not appear for the appeal hearing, and the penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). - The Tribunal upheld the penalty as the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for non-compliance.2. Appeal against order in quantum proceedings under section 143(3) for Asst. Year 2017-18: - The assessee raised multiple grounds challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer. - The AO made additions for unexplained unsecured loans and invoked section 115BBE for tax liability computation. - The CIT(A) upheld the additions as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan. - The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee did not provide any material to support their case. - Issues regarding TDS credit and tax payment were also raised, but the CIT(A)'s directions were upheld due to lack of representation from the assessee.In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the penalties and additions imposed by the authorities due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to substantiate claims. The decision was based on the lack of representation and supporting evidence from the assessee in both cases.