JAI KUWAR,SONIPAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, SONIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7314/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 March 2023AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had appeared during the assessment proceedings, levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance was not justified. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the penalty levied for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year 2010-11. Despite some un-responded notices, the assessee had attended assessment proceedings and submitted replies at times.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when the assessee has appeared and responded to notices during assessment proceedings, despite some instances of non-response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 23/03/2023Pronounced: 23/03/2023

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Rohtak dated 17.06.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (b) of the Act. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4.

The penalty has been levied for non appearance before the AO. Further, a perusal of the assessment order show that Sh. Jai Kunwar attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and submitted his reply. This is mentioned at para 2 of page 1 of the assessment order. It appears that some of the notices remained un-responded which prompted the AO to frame the assessment exparte. But since the assessee had appeared during the course of the assessment proceedings we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(b) of the Act. The AO is directed to delete the same. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.

5.

Decision announced in the open court on 23.03.2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →