Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 1/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) 6th Floor, MTNL Building Charitable Trust C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co. CAS Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 Vs. 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021
PAN/GIR No. AAATD 7192 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri G. P. Mehta Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair
: 01.03.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to
the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.
The solitary issue involved in this appeal is challenging the penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs.10,000/-. It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal after a delay of 608 days and the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an Affidavit stating the reason for the delay in filing the appeal within the limitation period. On
2 ITA No. 1/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Charitable Trust vs. ITO perusal of the reason stated by the assessee trust, we are of the considered opinion that
the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned due to the sufficient cause, hence, we
hereby condone the delay.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the
Act and had filed its return of income dated 01.11.2017, declaring total income at Rs.Nil.
The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated
10.08.2018 was issued and served through email and subsequent notice u/s. 142(1) dated
09.09.2019 was also issued. As the assessee failed to comply with the said show cause
notice, the A.O. issued notice dated 10.10.2019 for levying the penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s.
272(2)(1)(d) of the Act. The A.O. levied the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the
Act for the reason that the assessee has not complied with and has not furnished the
required details sought for by the A.O.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who
confirmed the impugned penalty for the reason that the assessee has failed to comply with
the notice even before the first appellate authority.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on
record. It is observed that the assessee has been non compliant before the lower
authorities in furnishing the details sought for by the A.O. vide notice u/s. 143(2) and
142(1) of the Act. The assessee has also been non compliant before the first appellate
authority. The assessee being a public charitable trust, undertaking activities of general
3 ITA No. 1/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Charitable Trust vs. ITO public utility was said to lack sufficient manpower and resources. As per the submission
of the ld. AR, the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard before the
lower authorities and consequently penalty amounting to Rs.10,000/- was levied u/s.
272A(1)(d) of the Act. It is observed from the submission of the assessee trust that it was
not having computer facility and was unable to get access to the e-notices sent as it was
unaware of such notices, the assessee remained ex parte before the authorities. We find
that the assessee had reasonable cause for the failure to furnish the details as warranted
u/s. 273B of the Act which covered the penalty provision u/s. 272A(1). Hence, we are of
the considered view that the impugned penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act has to be
deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2023
Sd/- Sd/-
(Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 19.05.2023 Roshani, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai