DEVESH SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE 8, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
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?
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
Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.07.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
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’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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.
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)
- Sunil Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central…ITA 4576/MUM/2026[2002-03]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2002-03
- Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust… vs ACIT, Exemptions, CoimbatoreITA 2765/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
- Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust… vs ACIT, Exmeptions, CoimbatoreITA 2764/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
- Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust… vs ACIT, Exemptions, CoimbatoreITA 2763/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
- Surabi Educational and Charitable Trust… vs ACIT, Exemptions, CoimbatoreITA 2762/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026