RAJKUMAR BRINDHA,MADURAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 371/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 July 2023AY 2014-152 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 deleted the penalty, finding that the notice dated 07.03.2022 was unclear and called for irrelevant details. The assessee could not have reasonably replied to the said notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to multiple notices issued during assessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings for non-compliance, which was later reduced by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is justified when the assessee failed to comply with notices that were unclear or called for irrelevant information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 147,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole grievance of the assessee in the captioned appeal is confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs.10,000/-. From the case records, it emerges that an assessment was framed against the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 on 28.03.2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices were issued u/s 148, 142(1) and 144 which have been tabulated on page no.2 of the assessment order. However, the assessee failed to respond to the same. Accordingly, the assessment was framed on best judgment basis and impugned penalty was initiated against the assessee.

2.

The assessee did not comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) on 13.12.2021, 23.02.2022 and 07.03.2022 against which Ld. AO proposed penalty. The assessee submitted that the notice issued on 07.03.2022 was an unclear notice. The assessee also assailed impugned penalty on the ground that the assessment was under challenge. However, Ld. AO held that non-compliance of statutory notices on three occasions would invite penalty and accordingly, he imposed penalty of Rs.30000/-.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that in the show-cause notice dated 28.03.2022, Ld. AO had mentioned only one default i.e., notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 07.03.2022. Accordingly, the impugned penalty was reduced to Rs.10000/- against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. It could be seen that the assessee was required to file the reply in newly introduced electronic mode. It is also seen that in notice dated 07.03.2022, certain details have been called for by Ld. AO which are not relevant for the assessee. The assessee could not have otherwise reply to the said notice. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, we delete the impugned penalty. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 06th July, 2023.

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 →