P A PROJECT PVT LTD,BOKARO vs. DCIT CIR-3, BOKARO
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the regular assessment under Section 143(3) did not support the allegation of non-compliance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for alleged non-compliance with scrutiny notices. The assessee remained absent for the hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly imposed for alleged non-compliance with scrutiny notices, considering the nature of the completed assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH (oral):- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hazaribag’s order dated 22.06.2017 passed in case No.10055/HZB/2016-17, imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. The registry has sent an RPAD notice(s) to the assessee as well for today’s hearing. We proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is not taken up for adjudication on merits.
A.Y. 2014-15 P.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Cir.-2,Bokaro Page 2 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities imposing sec. 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.20,000/- on account of its alleged non-compliance to the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notice(s). We are informed that the Assessing Officer had a completed regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The same sufficiently indicates that it is not a case of the alleged non-compliance per se as is made out in both the lower proceedings. We thus direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026