V.SRINIVASAN,VANAGARAM CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 361/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 April 2023AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance was due to Covid-19 infection and medical reasons, not intentional or willful. Considering the assessee's age, profession, and medical condition, the Tribunal deemed it not a fit case for penalty imposition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist and senior citizen, failed to respond to notices issued under Section 142(1) on two occasions. This non-compliance led to a penalty of Rs. 20,000 being levied. The assessee claimed the non-compliance was due to Covid-19 infection.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) is justified when the non-compliance is due to a medical reason like Covid-19 infection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM, & HON’BLE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs.20,000/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee is in further appeal before us. This penalty has been levied for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) on two ocassions. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-01-2023 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. AO vide order dated 24.01.2022. The assessee is an agriculturist and a senior citizen. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to profile of the assessee, pleaded for deletion of impugned penalty which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. Having heard rival submissions and after perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

We find that the assessee failed to respond to notices issued u/s 142(1) which led Ld. AO to impose impugned penalty. During penalty proceedings also, the assessee remained non-compliant. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it could not respond to notices issued u/s 142(1) on 25.02.2021 and 18.07.2021 due to the fact that the assessee was affected by Covid-19 infection. The non-compliance was neither intentional nor willful but due to medical reasons. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that the assessee did not attend the penalty proceedings also. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the assessee is more than 67 years of age and an agriculturist. At the time of hearing, the assessee was infected with Covid infection which is a reasonable explanation. The assessee may not be conversant with e-proceedings. Considering the totality of case, this is not a fit case of imposition of penalty. We order so.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th April, 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 →