TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The appeals arising allied issues, were posted for hearing and, accordingly, heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience. 3.1 Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee-appellant, it was submitted by Shri Usrethe, that the assessee is a man of little means, residing in a remote area of Sidhi, engaged in petty contracts for a living. He had, prior to the current year, never filed a return of income as his income was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, and has started filing the returns only w.e.f. AY 2012-13. During the relevant previous year, he worked as a collecting agent for his friend, Shri Shivendra Singh, Proprietor, M/s. Viv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... And who, guilty of non-performance, promised to take up the matter in earnest before the ld. CIT(A), i.e., in first appeal. The subsequent notices in penalty proceedings were also similarly made over to the counsel who, however, did nothing in the matter, resulting in levy of penalty vide orders dated 26/6/2018, where-after the file was withdrawn from him. All this stands explained per his affidavit dated 07.6.2021 by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) (PB pgs. 35-36). So, however, penalty, as levied, stands confirmed, i.e., at Rs. 10,000, for each of the two notices u/s. 142(1). Reliance was placed by him on Sanjay Shrivastava v. ITO (in ITA Nos. 434 to 438/Del/2010) and Manju Kataruka v. ITO [2005] 94 TTJ 873 (Kol). 3.2 Shri Halder, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is stated to be working as a collecting agent for a commission, or to RTL (on their behalf). However, that does not explain the cash withdrawal of Rs. 55,500 between 15.4.2009 to 25.9.2009, as against the cash deposited in account during the said period at Rs. 4.54 lacs. This works to a ratio of 12.22% (of the cash deposit), which cannot be a rate of commission. How could, in any case, a commission rate be paid at that rate when the person selling the recharge voucher card itself gets a commission of, as stated, 1%-2%, which perhaps may not even cover the cost of collection, involve, presumably, transmuting? There was, inexplicably, a cessation of cash deposit thereafter, which commenced only in January, 2010, with direct transf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts the eye. Further, what, one may ask, prevented the assessee to file a return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148(1) dated 22.3.2017? The assessee had been filing income-tax returns, as stated, since 2012 (i.e., for AY 2012-13, and onwards), so that he cannot be unaware of the procedure for filing the same. Even if therefore no return was filed u/s. 139(1) because of low income - not shown, implying of the assessee being aware of the provisions of law qua the obligation to file the return of income, he surely ought to have returned, at whatever income, in response to the notice u/s. 148(1). No tax consultant could be expected to advise his client to ignore the said notice. Shri Usrethe, on being so questioned by the Bench during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even if below the taxable limit, would have at once established the assessee's bona fides. I, therefore, for the stated reasons, find the levy of impugned penalty as valid in law. 4.4 Coming to the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b), the assessee's explanation, again furnished for the first time before the ld. CIT(A), is of the non-compliance of the notices u/s.142(1) on account of professional misconduct of his consultant, who had been entrusted with the work by him. Though stated to be advanced per a sworn affidavit, a perusal of the same (PB pg. 35-36), reveals no such charge or claim? Why? That apart, the explanation does not state even the name of the concerned counsel, or of his having been authorized by the assessee to represent him. No sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dinate delay in filing the appeals is the non-connectivity with the Revenue's e-portal, which could at best explain the delay by a few days. Under the circumstances, I find no merit in the assessee's case qua penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) as well. 4.5 I may next also discuss the case law relied upon by Shri Usrethe. The decision in Sanjay Shrivastava (supra) is distinguishable for more than one reason. As afore-explained (para 4.3), the commission rate, which could be different for different franchisees, is nowhere specified, and the maximum, stated rate of 8% is also inconsistent with the accretion of Rs. 2.14 lacs by the year-end, which is exclusive of Rs. 0.60 lacs withdrawn cash/expended during the year. Also, the non-compliance of no....