The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that at the time of assessment Assessing Officer (AO) observed concealment of income for which proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated.
The assessee Amandeep Singh Sran filed original return of income declaring total taxable income of Rs. 21,12,940 for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the business/residential premises of the assessee as a part of HBN Group of cases.
Accordingly proceedings were initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act by issue of notice. In response to this, assessee filed his return of income declaring total taxable income at Rs. 21,12,940. Subsequently assessment was completed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act determining total taxable income at Rs. 5,21,12,940 by making an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 on account of income from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated by issue of notice.
Assessee had raised all the grounds on merits challenging the additions which are not accepted by Assessing Officer (AO) and taking into consideration the statement recorded during the search and subsequent proceedings the AO imposed the penalty
Aggrieved by the order the assesee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which has upheld observing that the assessee has failed to prove that transaction recorded in the seized paper do not belong to him, which was accepted as undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Further aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
The Bench comprising of G.S.Pannu, President and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that when the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the appellant and the record shows that after 20th March, 2023 matter has been listed repeatedly but none has appeared.
It was further noted that the notice for the present date of proceeding issued through RPAD (Registered Post with Acknowledge Due) is received back with the report that no person resides at the address. The record shows earlier professionals have appeared for the assessee and sought adjournments but have failed to file power of attorney for any date of hearing. Therefore no more notice to assessee was justified.
The Tribunal observed that that there is no matter on record to show as to what is the nature of ambiguity in the notice as issued. No copy of the notice is on record. It was further observed that at the time of assessment AO has observed there was concealment of income for which proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was initiated.
Hence, the appeal of assessee was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
