MUDASSIR HAYAT,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2551/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)1 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 levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices, when the notices were allegedly not served on the correct address and this fact was not considered by the lower authorities, would be unfair and unjustified. The penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from an order confirming a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that notices were not served on the correct address, leading to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly confirmed when the assessee claimed non-service of notices at the correct address, and this was not considered by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri W. A. Khan, Adv, Shri Monis Khan, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23/07/2025Pronounced: 25/07/2025

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064176321(1) dated 18.04.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 01.09.2021 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(4), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

The only effective issue to be decided is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty 271(1)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and assessee had always pleaded that the notices issued by the ld AO were not served on the assessee which eventually lead to framing of assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The assessee also pleaded that the notices were served on the wrong address of the assessee. These facts were duly brought to the knowledge of the ld CIT(A) who had not taken cognizance of the same. In this scenario, inviting the assessee with penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance to the notices would be unfair and unjustified. We hold that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and cancel the same. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →