TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Delhi(hereinafter called "the AO") under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act")(DIN ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/2021-22/1039595675(1). We have heard both the parties in Open Court proceedings through physical hearing mode. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called "the tribunal"), reads as under: "1. Because it was fully explained that the assessee had been a professor in Law in BHU and he was always been invited by other universities for examination purposes and during the date of hearing in the month of December he was on tour for exam purposes. 2. Because it was fully explained that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment proceedings in October and told that there is now no occasion for his appearance. That due to change in incumbent of the office another notice was sent to the assessee and meanwhile he was out of station busy in examination purposes and could not appear. 3. Because the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred and acted illegally in levying the penalty to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and Ld. CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee. Since, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee and the matter was getting time barred, the AO framed best judgment assessment against the assessee u/s 144 of the 1961 Act , wherein income assessed was Rs. 85,60,940/- against returned income of Rs.25,60,940/- . The AO made addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/- under the provisions of Section 69A being unexplained money , as the AO had notices that the cash was deposited in the assessee's bank account No. 10654944611 with State Bank of India during the Demonetization period i.e. between 9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016, which as per AO the assessee failed to explain the sources of said cash deposit. The AO also invoked penalty provisions under Section 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act against the assessee for failure to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) as outlined in the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 , in para 1 & 2 of the assessment order . 4. The penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act were accordingly initiated by the AO against the assessee for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 143(2), dated 13.08.2018 and for failure to comply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The AO during penalty proceedings also rejected the contentions of the assessee of being busy with professional engagements at Kolkatta during relevant time and he could not attend the hearings, as in view of AO the details were required to be filed only online through ITBA portal and no physical representation/appearance was required. The AO also rejected the contention of the assessee to keep penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) in abeyance, in view of the first appeal filed against quantum assessment been pending before ld. CIT(A), as in view of the AO there is no mention of the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) challenging quantum appeal. The AO was of the view that even if the assessee gets relief in appeal against quantum assessment, it would have no effect so far as non-compliances to the statutory notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) during assessment proceedings are concerned , as the aforesaid non compliances attract penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act. Thus, the AO held that the assessee has failed to offer any reasonable explanation against the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r u/s 144 of the Act, 1961. However, on perusal of the grounds of appeal filed before CIT (Appeal) in the form 35, it is observed that the assesse has not made any appeal against the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. There is no mention of the penal proceedings initiated for the noncompliance by the assesse. Moreover, even if the assesse gets reprieve against the additions made in the assessment order, by the CIT (Appeals) , that would not leave any effect on the issue of non-compliance to the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has attracted the penal provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act in this case. The appellant has taken following grounds of appeal against the assessment order us Tad of the Act:- 1."Because it was fully explained that the assesse has made a withdrawal of Rs 60 lakhs on 13.10.2016 to acquire the agricultural land in his native village, but due to demonization the amount could not be transferred to the intending seller and therefore it was deposited in the bank a/c on 20.12.2016 The id Assessing Officer has erred and acted legally in not placing reliance on the same 2. Because the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is concerning levy of penalty of Rs. 60,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliances by the assessee of the notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act during assessment proceedings . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the first appeal against the quantum assessment order passed by AO under Section 144 of the Act is pending before ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee is a Retired Professor in Law who is very renowned. It was submitted that the assessee is very busy person even post retirement, as his services are still being availed by various renowned universities/institutions from time to time. To buttress his submission, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record some of the credentials of the assessee by way of paper book containing 29 pages as well email dated 12.08.2022 & 13.08.2022, which suggests his association with Faculty of Law, Delhi University Bar Council of India, Dean, Adamas School of Law, Adamas Univesrity,Kolkatta Mahatama Gandhi Antartashtriya Hindi Vishwavidalaya, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur , Chotanagpur Law College, Ranchi, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notices during the assessment proceedings by emails to the registered email id of the assessee , wherein the assessee was directed to file replies to various queries raised by the AO electronically through ITBA portal. These statutory notices remained un-complied with by the assessee , except on one occasion when the assessee filed part reply before the AO through manual/physical mode, which as per AO was merely a part reply. The best judgment assessment was framed by AO u/s 144 of the 1961 Act vide assessment order dated 17.12.2019 , wherein addition of Rs. 60 lacs towards cash deposit in bank account by assessee was considered by AO as unexplained money u/s 69A and added to income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee by AO u/s 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices were issued by the AO, which ultimately culminated to the levy of penalty of Rs. 60000/- by AO against the assessee , vide penalty order dated 10.02.2022 passed by AO u/s 272A(1)(d) of the 1961 Act, for following defaults in complying with statutory notices: Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-compliance of notices u/s Rs. 143(2) dated 13.08.2018 Rs. 10,000....