Case Law Details
Safiq Ahmad Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur, in the case of Safiq Ahmad Vs ITO, issued a unique ruling directing the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 2,000 in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. This came as a result of the assessee’s failure to cooperate during penalty proceedings under Sections 271B and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This article delves into the specifics of the ruling and its implications.
Lethargic Behavior and Legal Consequences: During the hearing, the bench noted that the assessee had been provided multiple opportunities to present their case before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Despite this, the assessee displayed a lack of seriousness in pursuing the case. The bench rejected the adjournment applications submitted and decided to proceed with the hearing.
Power of Attorney Issues: The bench also highlighted that the proxy representing the assessee did not hold the power of attorney, further complicating the proceedings.
Absence of Documentary Evidence: The CIT(A) had issued various notices under Section 250 of the I.T. Act, asking the assessee to provide documentary evidence supporting their appeal. The assessee’s failure to respond to these notices or provide the necessary documentation led to the penalty under Section 271B amounting to Rs. 48,998 and under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,55,425 being upheld.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
