VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD SINGRAULI, SINGRAULI

PAN/GIR No. : BEUPS1133R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondentby : Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) without considering the citations given to prove the reasonable cause for non compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1).

5. The penalty was levied by the assessment unit u/s 272A(1)(d). While furnishing the details of appeal there is no column for section under which penalty levied, as such section of penalty is selected 271(1)(b) being corresponding section 2.The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 16.03.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,95,320/-. Whereas the Assessing Officer (AO) has received information that during the F.Y 2016-17 the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 1,08,16,600/- in the savings bank account with the SBI and the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the A.O has issued notice u/sec143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently notice U/sec142(1) of the Act is issued to explain the sources of cash deposits in the bank account. Since there was no proper compliance by the assessee, the A.O. has invoked best judgment assessment and made addition of Rs.1,08,16,600/-and assessed the total income of Rs. 1,11,11,920/-and passed the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 10.12.2019.

3.Subsequentlythe A.O has initiated penalty proceedings. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings has issued Notice U/sec142(1) of the Act on various dates and the assessee could not complied with the notices. Whereas the A.O observed that the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notices and the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations filed in the proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- and passed the order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 25.08.2021.

4.Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO and sustained the penalty and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

5.We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the AO has levied the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act as the assessee has not complied with the notices. Whereas on perusal of the facts and the submissions of the assessee in the paper book. It was explained before the AO and CIT(A) that the assessee is a salaried employee and not aware of procedure of income tax and not used to open the email account regularly. Further on the additions made by the assessing officer , the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A).We find the assessee has explained the reasonable and sufficient cause before the CIT(A) referred at Para 4 and relied on the judicial decisions. Hence considering the facts, circumstances and the ratio of judicial decisions, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty and allow the grounds in favour of the assessee.

( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Jabalpur