Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6787
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, J, SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACJ
High Voit Electicals Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
ITO, Ward – 1 – Respondent
ITA No.4462, 4463, 4464 & 4465/Mum/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Failure to comply with statutory notices and non-filing of income tax returns can lead to penalties under the Income Tax Act.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 44AB - Penalty imposed for non-compliance with notices and non-filing of returns - The Assessing Officer (AO) demonstrated that the assessee failed to comply with multiple statutory notices and did not file income tax returns for an assessment year exceeding the threshold limit for compliance under section 139 - The appeals were dismissed as no new evidence or satisfactory explanation was provided during the proceedings. (Paras 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 12)
(B) Grounds of appeal - The appellant's contentions regarding income declaration inconsistencies were found unsubstantiated, with the Assessing Officer correctly imposing penalties as procedural compliance was not satisfied. (Paras 5.5, 5.9)
Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed against penalties imposed for failure to furnish returns and response to notices under the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear for hearings despite multiple opportunities and prior adjournments. Additionally, the assessment was based on transactions exceeding taxable limits.
Findings of Court:
The court substantiated the penalties as the appellant did not meet compliance requirements set by the Authorities despite opportunities to explain its position.
Issues: The main issues were the imposition of penalties for non-filing of income tax returns and failure to comply with statutory notices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that proper compliance with notice requirements is critical, and failure to substantiate claims leads to justified penalties under the Income Tax Act.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple appeals filed against penalties imposed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. failure to comply with notices results in penalties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. non-filing of returns leads to penalty assessments. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to contest penalties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. appeals were ultimately dismissed based on established violations. (Para 12) |
ORDER
Per Bench.:
These fourappeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14.
2. Since all the four appeals are belongs to one assessee, hence, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed forthe sake of convenience and brevity.
ITA No. 4462/Mum/2025, A.Y 2013-14
3. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. Even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. From the records, we noticed that assessee had twice taken adjournments on one or the other reasons and the present date of hearing was fixed in the presence of the assesse but still assesse has chosen not to appear.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with arguments, therefore we have decided to proceeded with the hearing of this appeal ex-parte.
5. From the records, we noticed that at the time of passing of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, several opportunities were granted to the assessee for furnishing required evidences but assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the revenue. Since onus lies on the assessee to explain the charge of having failed to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act but the assessee could not offer any explanation therefore penalty was imposed. Even during the appellate proceedings the assessee could not substantiate the grounds raised in appeal therefore Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:
5.2 I have gone through the materialistic facts of the case and contention of the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished the statement of facts and form no. 35 along with his submission which has been taken on record. It is found that the appellant's case was reopened u/s 147/148 and during assessment proceedings for providing an opportunity of being heard, notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 19.10.2020 and 25.10.2020 to furnish certain details/information. The assessee did not furnish any details/information on the compliance dates. Hence, the assessee vide notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 16.09.2021 and 09.12.2021 was show caused as to why an order imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 should not be made for failure to furnish the reply as required under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee did not make any compliance of this notice. The AO has mentioned that on one occasion the Assessee furnished its reply but failed to furnish any reasonable cause with evidence. Hence reply of the assessee was not acceptable. Therefore, the AO was satisfied that assessee has failed to comply to statutory notices issued without any reasonable cause and accordingly, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each failure totaling to Rs.20,000/- for the above defaults.
5.3 During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has gone through all the submissions and materials available in the office. The facts of the case are that there was double allotment of PAN and status mismatch is correct. However, in view of the surrounding circumstances as per records, the appellant has intentionally not changed the PAN AABFH1723L with the third parties from whom, the said information wrt transactional on the basis of which the case was opened, was received to the AO, which evidences it a clear case of suppression of receipts by the appellant wrt the PAN – AABFH1723L. It shows that the appellant's contenti
