TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned D.R. for Revenue was present and ready to argue the case for Revenue. In these circumstances, as mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal seriously and therefore proceed to dispose the same with the assistance of the learned D.R. for Revenue and the material on record. 3.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under: - "1. The Learned Officer Shri K. V. Sreenivas has erred in passing order U/s. 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.01.2013 despite the fact that the remarks of "None Attended" cannot withstand the facts of the case; 2. It is important to note the sequence of events, which are described hereunder: a. The scrutiny for Asst. Year 2010-2011 was carried out between September' 2012 to December' 2012 before the same learned officer, Shri K. V. Sreenivas; b. The assessment was made U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order dated 31.12.2012 was delivered to us accordingly by hand through our same Authorised Chartered Accountant, who had been there since past several years; c. The learned officer was orally requested that some few days be grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under: 4. As can be seen from the above, that the total refund expected to be released from the Department of Income Tax was approximately to the tune of Rs. 390,000/-. Since the total liability for the Fin Year 2011-2012 stood at Rs. 244,943/- we were expecting the refund to get credited. The refund was badly awaited to curtail our financial crunch, however unfortunately it dint go the way we planned; 5. Since the refunds were already expected; and since this was the FIRST YEAR of payment of Self-Assessment Tax (previous years being the cases for refund), the delay in payment of taxes should be condoned; 6. Moreover, the department had rightly exempted Transporters from deduction of TDS and hence accumulation of funds to make the payment of taxes (this being the first year of Payment of selfassessment tax) became unexpectedly difficult; 7. We seek the relief on the ground that in one the cases appealed before the Tribunal, the latter had rightly stated that "Penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. It was further submitted that the learned CIT(A) had also observed that the AO had levied the said penalty for good and sufficient reasons and after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard which could not be controverted by the assessee and in this view of the matter, upheld the levy of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. It is contended by the learned D.R. that since the grounds raised by the assessee (supra) are all arguments put forth before the authorities below in the course of penalty proceedings and which has been considered by them while passing of the orders, and nothing has been brought on record by the assessee to controvert the findings in the impugned order, the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5.1 We have heard the learned D.R. for Revenue and perused and carefully considered the material on record. Though several grounds have been raised by the assessee in this appeal (supra) the only issue on which this appeal has been preferred is for consideration and adjudication in respect of the penalty of Rs. 2,44,943/- levied under section 221(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13. The submissions of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same learned Officer. The date mentioned by the Learned Officer u/s 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds with the period of hearing carried out for disposal of scrutiny assessment for the Asst. year 2010-2011 and hence his remark that "None Attended" is misconceived and far from reality. Further, the notices mentioned by him were never received by us till we obtained the order u/s 221(1) dated 28.01.2013. Due to the aforesaid reason, we would request your excellency to grant us stay on the said demand raised by the learned officer u/s 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The aforesaid reasons justify that we were not aware that such notices as mentioned in the Learned Officers Order u/s 221(1) were ever issued to us Further, we had attended several dates during the said period as mentioned in his order u/s 221(1) for disposal of scrutiny case for Asst. Year 2010-2011, and hence it is not true that we committed default u/ s 221(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961. The undersigned requests your goodself to grant stay to avoid undue hardship. Kindly condone any delay (if any) which may have been cause at our end. The undersigned or his representative shall attend each dates as provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and thereby followed the mandate of the Act. The appellant alleged that the said notices were never issued by him. On perusal of the record with the A.O. it is observed that the notices were sent on the address of assessee which was available in PAN database. Even when the opportunities were granted and availed of in appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to buttress his claim with documentary evidence like bank pass book or cash book to show that he was suffering with financial crunch. 2.7 As per the provisions of the section 221(1), penalty is not to be levied if assessee proves, to the satisfaction of the AO, that the default was for good and sufficient reasons. Second condition for levying penalty is that before levying any such penalty the assessee has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As far as first condition is concerned, onus is on the assessee to prove the existence of good and sufficient reason. The appellant has not brought even an iota of evidence on record to indicate why he could not pay taxes as per provisions of the Act. On the other hand, AO has to establish that he afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ....