RATAKONDA RAVI,MADANAPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MADANAPALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 203/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ultimate cooperation in completing the assessment but also noted the non-compliance. To strike a balance, the penalty was sustained for one occasion and deleted for the others.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act on four occasions. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under section 271(1)(b) for each non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) when the assessee eventually cooperated with the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 17/05/2023

आ.अपी.सं / (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ratakonda Ravi, Income Tax Officer, Madanapalli Vs. Ward-1, [PAN No. AAGHR2421E] Madanapalli (अपीलधर्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Kiran Manohar, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 17/05/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 19/05/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 09/02/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Ratakonda Ravi (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was levied for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act on four occasions, namely, 22/12/2020, 10/02/2021, 05/07/2021 and 15/07/2021. Learned AR submits that the learned Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 21/09/2021 and that itself shows that the assessee co-operated with the assessment proceedings and the assessee was prevented on such occasions due to medical reasons. Learned AR, therefore, prayed that inasmuch as the assessee co-operated with the assessment proceedings, assessment order was passed after hearing the assessee only, the levy of penalty is not invited and the same may be deleted.

3.

Per contra, learned DR submitted that if this sort of lapse on the part of the assessee is allowed, it would create a lot of problem to the authorities because the assessees may appear before the learned Assessing Officer in the last minute and say that ultimately they complied with the notices. He vehemently opposed the contentions of assessee.

4.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act that the assessee failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) of the Act on four occasions, stated supra, which resulted in levy of penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for each occasion. Having regard to the fact that ultimately the assessment proceedings could be completed with the co-operation of the assessee, but at the same time, to strike a balance between the conduct of the assessee and need to take a lenient view, we sustain the penalty for one occasion at Rs. 10,000/- and delete the balance.

5.

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as partly 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 →