Unique Automobiles ,, Sangli v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2,, Sangli

ITA 23/PUN/2018 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2324514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAAFU3563A
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 23/PUN/2018
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Unique Automobiles ,, Sangli
Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2,, Sangli
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-05-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 10-02-2021
Next Hearing Date 10-02-2021
Last Hearing Date 10-02-2021
First Hearing Date 10-11-2020
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 04-01-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23 /PUN/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 00 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES 1043 MADHAVNAGAR ROAD SANGLI 416416 MAHARASHTRA PAN : AAAFU3563A ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. DCIT CIRCLE - 2 SANGLI / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 - 03 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 - 0 5 - 2021 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI JM : TH ESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16 - 10 - 2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 KOLHAPUR [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 00 - 01 TO 2003 - 04. 2. WE FIND THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THUS THE ASSESSEE CALLED 2 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 ABSENT AND SET EX - PARTE. THEREFORE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE BY HEARING THE L D. DR AND EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE SIMILAR BASED ON SAME IDENTICAL FACTS . WITH THE C ONSENT OF L D. DR WE PROCEED TO HEAR ALL THE FOUR APPEALS TOGETHER AND TO PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 18/PUN/2018 FOR A.Y. 20 00 - 01. ITA NO. 18/PUN/2018 (A.Y. 20 00 - 01 ) 5. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS PURCHASE AND SALE OF TRACTORS MOTORCYCLES MOPEDS AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS TRAILORS AND THEIR SPARES AND ACCESSORIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES AT RS.17 79 68 519/ - FOR A.Y. 2000 - 01 WHICH REQUIRES TO FILE AUDI T REPORT SINCE IT IS MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ONLY ON 21 - 09 - 2005 AS AGAINST THE 31 - 10 - 2000. FOR SUCH DELAY THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S. 271B OF THE ACT FOR NON FILING OF AUDIT REPORT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. FURTHER THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN SPITE OF RECEIPT OF THREE NOTICES DATED 12 - 06 - 2006 23 - 06 - 2006 AND 11 - 07 - 2006 ISSUED BY HIM THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR IN THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS AND ACCORDINGLY HE 3 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1 00 000/ - AS WORKED OUT IN THE LAST PAGE OF PENALTY ORDER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25 - 07 - 2006 PASSED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. 7. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 271B OF THE ACT BY RAISING A SOLE GROUND I.E. T HAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271B MAY BE PLEASE BE CANCELLED . WE FIND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED TWO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE EFFECTIVELY REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NOS. 4 TO 6. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAME IN DETAIL AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE REASONABLE CAUSE AS MENTIONED IN ITS TWO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND BY PLAC ING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF R.R. BUILDERS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1399/PN/2011 DATED 28 - 02 - 2013. 8. HAVING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US RAISING A SOLITARY GROUND AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN PARA 5. WE TREAT THE TWO WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US SINCE NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 9. THE L D. DR SHRI S.P. WALIMBE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FAR ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR TAX AUDIT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND TAX AUDIT BELATEDLY THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN SPITE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICES THRICE AND REF ERRED TO PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF TWO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR CANCELLATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED. ONE SUCH REASON WAS THAT HARD DISK DRIVE OF THE COMPUTER HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED IN F.Y. 1999 - 20 00 DUE TO SOME 4 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 ACCIDENTAL INCIDENT BUT FAILED TO GIVE WHAT STEPS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TO RETRIEVE THE DATA WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 10. ANOTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF WIFE OF ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN TIME FOR WHICH HE ARGUED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR WHATSOEVER SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN STEPS TO APPOINT NEW TAX AUDITOR. 11. IN THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED THE DELAY WAS DUE TO FAILURE OF PREVIOUS TAX CONSULTANT WHO FAILED TO GET AUDIT WORK IN TIME. THE L D. DR SUBMITS THAT THE SAID TAX CONSULTANT SHRI SACHIN DESHPANDE IS AN ADVOCATE WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO AUDIT WORK AND THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL OFFENDER FOR CHANGING RE ASONS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES FOR THE BELATED SUBMISSIONS OF AUDIT WORK. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SCANT REGARD FOR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AS IN SPITE OF RECEIVING NOTICE OF THIS TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR IN THIS PROCEEDINGS ALSO . H E SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271B OF THE ACT AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. HEARD L D. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.17 79 68 519 WHICH REQUIRES TAX AUDIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS 2000 - 01 AND THE STIPULATED TIME FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT IS 31 - 10 - 2001. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO TAX AUDIT REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT ON OR BEFORE 31 - 10 - 2001. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH 5 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 TAX AUDIT REPORT O N 21 - 09 - 2005 THAT TO IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT SO THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALO NG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT NOT ON ITS OWN BUT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE FURTHER HAD IT BEEN NO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT ON 21 - 09 - 2005 WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT OF LD. DR SHRI S.P. WALIMBE . 13. THE RECORD SUGGESTS THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO IN ORIGINAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO SETS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) DEALT WITH TWO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN DETAIL IN ITS ORDER. THE FIRST REASON HAS CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HARD DISK OF COMPUTER HAS BEEN CORRUPTED AND DATA THEREIN IS VANISHED FOR F.Y. 1999 - 2000 RELATING TO A.Y. 2000 - 01 WHICH IS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT HOWEVER AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE LD. DR NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FILED WHAT STEPS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE L D. DR DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE TWO REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL SUBSTANTIATING THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTING THE CAUSE FOR DELAY CANVASSED BY IT. IN OUR OPINION THE CAUSE OF HARD DISK DRIVE OF COMPUTER SYSTEM BEING CORRUPTED AND THE DATA IS VANISHED IS NO VALID REASON FOR NON - FILING OF TAX AUDIT REPORT. 14. ANOTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO LOOK S AFTER ALL THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCES U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT IN TIME DUE TO HIS WIFE ILLN ESS. THE L D. DR CONTENDED IT IS NOT A VALID REASON IF ONE 6 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE STATUTORY COMPLIANCES THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO APPOINT NEW TAX AUDITOR ATLEAST FOR NEXT SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS SUCH THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO DO THE SAME. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF L D. DR THAT ONE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FAILS TO DO COMPLIANCES THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE COMPLIANCE S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS BY APPOINT ING NEW TAX AUDITOR BUT HOWEVER THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF WIFE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT COULD NOT FILE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN TIME IN OUR OPINION IT IS ALSO NO VALID REASON THAT NON - FILING OF TAX AUDIT REPORT IN TIME . 15. IN THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 17 - 08 - 2017 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT SHRI SACHIN DESHPANDE WAS APPOINTED AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO LOOK AFTER TAX WORK AND HE DID NOT FILE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME AND IT IS THE FAULT OF A UTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE BUT NOT THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD EITHER BEFORE THE TWO LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS PREPARED AND THE SAID A UTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE SHRI SACHIN DESHPANDE COULD NOT FILE THE SAME IN TIME IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE L D. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE KEPT ON CHANGING ITS VERSION FOR CAUSING DELAY OF FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE SAID REASONS. HAVING PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD AND FIND NO VALID REASONS SUPPORTING T HE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR D ELAY IN FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND IT IS JUSTIFIED. THUS THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSE SSEE IN ITA NO. 18/PUN/2018 IS DISMISSED. 7 ITA NO S.18 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 A.YS. 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 ITA NOS.19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 (A.YS. 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04) 17. THE L D. DR STAT ED THAT THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED IN ITA NOS. 19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.18/PUN/2018. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND ARE ARISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.18/PUN/ 2018 WOULD MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.19 21 & 23/PUN/2018 AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 18. TO SUM UP ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 25 TH MA Y 202 1 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.S. SYAL ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 25 TH MA Y 202 1 . RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 1 KOLHAPUR 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 KOLHAPUR 5. / DR ITAT B BENCH PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE