ITA No. 6563/Del/2019

Assessment Year: 2015-2016

Decided On: 27.09.2021

Appellants: Lakshmi Rani Vs. Respondent: ITO, Ward-43(5)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anil Chaturvedi


Anil Chaturvedi, Member (A)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-15, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under:

3. Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of financial services and facilitates loans to various clients from financial institutions. Assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 27.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 14,25,300/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS. Notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act was issued from time to time. In response to these notices Learned Counsel for the assessee attended the proceedings and filed detailed as called for from time to time. Thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017 and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 24,52,374/-. On the addition of Rs. 10,27,074/- made, AO vide order dated 27.06.2018 levied the penalty of Rs. 3,17,366/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. "That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and Ld. AO is wrong and bad in law.

2. That learned assessing officer and CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,17,366/- u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the payment of commission to agents who did not reply to the 133(6) sent by the department. The payment to these agents were made through banking channel but the appellant could not provide the current addresses of these agents as a period of about three years had elapsed and the appellant had no transactions with these agents thereafter. Thus the penalty has been wrongly imposed by holding that the appellant had not disclosed true and correct particulars of her income and concealed her income.

3. That learned assessing officer and CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,17,366/- u/s. 271(1)(c) by holding that the appellant had "furnished inaccurate particulars of income". The penalty proceedings were initiated for failure to disclose the true and correct particulars her income and concealment of her income but the penalty has been levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income thus the penalty is bad in law and deserves to be deleted.

4. That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add or delete all or any ground of this appeal.

That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."

5. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee though the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. The case file further reveals that on earlier occasions also, the matter was adjourned on account of non-appearance of assessee or her Counsel. In view of the aforesaid and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and after hearing the Learned DR.

6. Before me, Learned DR submitted that in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, AO had made addition of Rs. 10,27,074/- and on such addition, penalty of Rs. 3,17,366/- was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty has been upheld by CIT(A). He supported the order of CIT(A).

7. I have heard the Learned DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty of Rs. ........