JYOTI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 41(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4576/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2022AY 2014-153 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 conduct was not contumacious. Since the CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on non-receipt of the penalty order, the same reason should apply to the non-receipt of the notices leading to the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 80,000 under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with eight out of nine notices. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), citing non-receipt of notices due to a change in address.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when the assessee genuinely did not receive the notices due to a change in address and the same reason was accepted for condoning delay in appeal filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.06.2022Pronounced: 24.06.2022

Date of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.

CIT(A)-14, New Delhi, dated 29.04.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The only issue raised is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.80,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

In this case the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act.

The Assessing Officer noted that out of 9 notices, there was compliance of only one notice and hence on account of eight defaults, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs.80,000/- was imposed.

4.

Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

There was delay in filing of the appeal of 11 months before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay of 11 months by accepting the plea that the penalty order was e-mailed to the tax counsel and not to the assessee and that copies were sent to address of the assessee and they were also not received as the business has closed.

However, after accepting the above explanation, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to reject the assessee’s submission that the notices in connection with which the penalty has been levied were also not served upon the assessee as there was change in the assessee’s address. The Ld. CIT(A) took adverse inference that the assessee had not intimated the change of address and hence he declined the explanation of the assessee.

6.

Now, before us, the assessee has filed an affidavit submitting that there was change in the assessee’s address and that she is lady and her taxation affairs were looked after by brother in law Sh. Ravi Bansal and CA Mr. Ankur Aggarwal. That she was under bona fide belief that tax matters were attended by them.

7.

Upon careful consideration, in our considered opinion and in view of the aforesaid background, the conduct of the assessee cannot be said to be contumacious to warrant the levy of penalty. Moreover, when the same reason of non-receipt of notices is being accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay, we find that there is no reason why the same cannot be accepted to the non-receipt of notice issued with respect to penalty issue. Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee’s conduct is not contumacious. Accordingly, we hold that penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted and the same is directed to be deleted as such.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2022.

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 →