SINGANALLUR SUBRAMAN RADHAKRISHNAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 659/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 January 2023AY 2012-20133 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 the assessee's non-compliance was not deliberate, considering their age, lack of familiarity with electronic proceedings, and the pandemic context. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen, failed to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer due to unfamiliarity with e-proceedings and the prevailing COVID-19 lockdown situation. This led to a penalty being levied under Section 271(1)(b).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices is justified when the assessee is a senior citizen and faced challenges due to e-proceedings and the pandemic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 263,Section 144B,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty of Rs.40,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 29-06-2022 in the matter of penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] vide order dated 06-01-2022. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and was not well versed with e-proceedings. Therefore, the assessee could - 2 - not respond to notices issued by Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR justified levy of penalty on the facts of the case.

3.

From the penalty order, it could be seen that pursuant to revision of order u/s 263, notices u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee from time to time, however, the same remained un-responded. The assessee neither made compliance nor sought any adjournment. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B on 13.09.2021. Consequently, impugned penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs.40,000/- on the ground that the assessee deliberately avoided compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us 4. We find that the assessee is a senior citizen and it was quite possible that the assessee was not well versed with electronic proceedings. Further, the proceedings have taken place during lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic which supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, these facts would not suggest that the assessee deliberately avoided compliances to notices. Hence, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal.

5.

The appeal stand allowed.

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 →