DEVESH SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE 8, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3835/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 July 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)4 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 alleged non-cooperation was justifiable due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically mentioning potential communication gaps in the newly introduced faceless assessment system. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order imposing a penalty under section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged non-cooperation during a faceless assessment proceeding. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) is justified in a faceless assessment scenario where communication gaps may occur, and if the assessee's non-cooperation was indeed beyond his control.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(c),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 03.07.2025Pronounced: 03.07.2025

Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.07.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 26.10.2023 passed in case no. 10086/2020-21, involving proceedings under section 272A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied section 272A(1)(c) penalty of Rs.80,000/- in assessee’s hands on account of the fact that he had not cooperated to the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notice(s) issued under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act on various dates. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching facts emerging from the case file that it is an instance of faceless assessment wherein possibility of some communication gaps in this newly introduced system which requires notices to be served by email etc., could not be altogether ruled out.

4.

That being the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s alleged non-cooperation during scrutiny herein was very well justifiable on account of the circumstances beyond his control and, therefore, the impugned penalty forming subject matter of our adjudication deserves to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(c)

All 66 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →