THE BEGUSARAI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BEGUSARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in imposing multiple penalties for non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal also considered the COVID period as a justifiable reason for the assessee's delay in submitting details.
What were the facts?
The assessee bank failed to comply with multiple notices issued under Section 142(1) during the COVID period. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for non-compliance with these notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with Section 142(1) notices is justified, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th March, 2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14.
Though the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.13,61,240/-. Thereafter the assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that he had issued notices under section 142(1) on 04.02.2021, 24.02.2021, 28.04.2021, 25.05.2021 and 16.08.2021. These notices were not complied with by the assessee and, therefore, it deserves to be visited with penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. He accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each non-compliance).
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 The Begusarai Central Cooperative Bank Limited 4. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
Before us, the Registry has reported that appeal is time-barred by 8 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been pleaded that on account of non-availability of the authorized signatory, the appeal become time-barred by 8 days. After taking into consideration the explanation given by the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer has erred in imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. The moment assessee failed to reply one or two notices, then, he should have taken ex-parte proceeding against the assessee instead of issuance of multiple notices and, then imposing multiple penalties. It is also pertinent to observe that the period during which 142(1) notices were issued was a COVID period and it was very difficult for every assessee to give reply. Therefore, we are of the view that there was a justifiable reason at the end of the assessee for not submitting the required details before the ld. Assessing Officer during COVID period. We allow this appeal and delete these penalties.
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 The Begusarai Central Cooperative Bank Limited 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.03.2024.
More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2465/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2464/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 178/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 177/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026