TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d CIT (A) in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of gold and pawn broking in the name and style of M/s. Jaidev Jewellers and Jawanmal Gulabchand Bankers respectively at Narsapuram wherein he is the proprietor. A survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, Act 1961 was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 12.5.2013 and certain incriminating material was found and impounded. The assessee filed his original return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 8,45,310/-. The case was selected up for scrutiny and statutory notice u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious additions amounting to Rs. 15,00,128 being difference in closing stock of gold and silver and excess silver stock admitted in IDS. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- was levied vide order dated 29.03.2019 against which the appellant had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by CIT[A) on account of delay vide order in Appeal No. 10423/2019-20 dated 24.02.2021. Against the order of CIT(A), the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble 1TAT wherein the Hon'ble ITAT vide order in ITA No.172/Hyd/2021 dated 29.10.2021 restored the file to CIT(A) with a directions to give 3 effective opportunities for fresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the assessee that the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 11,00,000/- comes to 298% of the tax sought to be evaded which is on the higher side and therefore, is not justified. It is his submission that although the assessee could not substantiate the excess stock of gold, however, it does not call for the maximum penalty leviable under the provisions of the Act and he has no objection if such penalty is reduced to the minimum penalty prescribed under the provisions of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that levy of penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded will meet the ends of justice, we, therefore, modify the order of the CIT (A) and direct the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... West Godavari (Dt.), A.P Sub: Condonation of delay Regarding Ref: Appeal No.10423/2019-20. CONDONATION OF DELAY Dr 10-02 2021 The appeal was instituted against the order dated 29.03.2019 pressiect u/s.27 (1)(c) of the 1.T Act, 1961 by the DCIT , Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad, for A.Y.2014-15. As per Form 35 filed by the appellant, the appellant was in receipt of the order u/s. 271(1)(c) on 05.04.2019 and the due date of filing the appeal was 05.05.2019. However, the appeal was filed on 20.03.2020 with a delay of 320 days 2.0 05.04.2019 and The appellant has filed a petition for condonation of delay wherein it wis submitted that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) WHN was given t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 03.03.2022 issued. No compliance. 03.03.2022 04.03.2022 Fresh hearing notice with DOH on 10.03.2022 issued. 10.03.2022 No compliance. 01.04.2022 Fresh hearing notice with DOH on 08.04.2022 issued. 08.04.2022 No compliance. 19.04.2022 Fresh hearing notice with DOH on 26.04.2022 issued. 26.04.2022 No compliance. 31.05.2022 Fresh hearing notice with DOH on 09.06.2022 issued. No compliance. 09.06.2022 28.06.2022 Fresh hearing notice with DOH on 06.07.2022 issued. 05.07.2022 No compliance. Document 4 6.2 Neither appellant nor Authorized Representative appeared on the dates posted for hearing on several occasions as mentioned above. The appellant failed to appear before the undersigned and subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006- 07. It is pertinent to add here that the laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibusjurasubveniunt". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligence and careful plaintiff is favoured to the prejudicial of him who is careless. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6.4 Even on merits, it is seen that the appellant could not prove the difference in closing stock which was under reported. The findings of the Assessing Officer in the penalty or....