VIMAL PUKHRAJ JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(1)(5), MUMBAI
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to hospitalization and provided documentary evidence. Therefore, the penalty levied was not fit.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return of income for AY 2018-19. Due to hospitalization from COVID-19, the assessee could not comply with notices issued during scrutiny assessment. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was levied for non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices is justified when the assessee had a reasonable cause due to medical reasons.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(3),Section 272A,Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 272A(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRIShri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vimal Pukhraj Jain Income Tax Officer Ward 806, Dheeraj Enclave, Borivali East, Vs. 42(1)(5) Opp. Bhor Industries, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, 400066 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAIPJ6511H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri. Pankaj Jain/ Ms. Karuna Kurle Shirdhankar /Revenue by: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR Date of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M]: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] dated 14.02.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –NFAC has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- levied by the assessing officer by invoking provisions of section 272A(1)(d) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the notices.”
3. At the outset, it is notice that there is a delay in filling appeal of 807 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the Ay 2018-19 Vimal Pukhraj Jain inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. It has been stated therein that the concerned accountant handling the tax matters had left the job. The assessee was under the bonafide belief that necessary action had been taken with regard to the filing of appeal as he had handed over copy of the CIT(A)’s order and all other documents to him in time. Subsequently, the new accountant was appointed, who checked the status of the proceedings on the income tax portal and thereafter it came to the notice of the assessee that the appeal before the Tribunal had not been filed. Since the filing of appeal got delayed due to genuine and bonafide reasons, therefore, the assessee has requested for condonation of delay. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case we observe that the delay was unintentional and due to bonafide reasons as explained and the same is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 6,92,940/- for AY 2018-19 on 29.03.2019. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. However, due to his hospitalization for treatment of covid, the assessee could not make requisite compliance during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Due to non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. AO, penalty proceeding u/s. 272A were also initiated simultaneously. A show cause notice u/s. 272A(1)(d) dated 08.04.2021 vide which the assessee was required to furnish its explanation regarding non- compliance to multiple notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Since no response was received from the assessee, another opportunity was provided Ay 2018-19 Vimal Pukhraj Jain by issuing a show cause notice on 16.07.2021. As no reply was filed by the assessee within the stipulated time, Ld. AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act vide order dated 13.08.2021. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) after holding that there was no merit in the arguments of the assessee regarding his hospitalisation during covid pandemic and, accordingly, the order of the Ld. AO imposing the penalty was upheld. The assessee has now filed an appeal against the order Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee had explained before ld. CIT(A) that compliance could not be made to the notices issued by the Ld. AO as he was suffering from covid and had also been hospitalised. Before us, the assessee has filed supporting medical documents and discharge summary from Bombay Hospital in support of his claim. It is further seen that five notices were issued by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings within a short span giving insufficient time for compliance to the assessee. All these notices have been issued in the year 2021 on 22.01.2021, 15.03.2021, 19.03.2021, 22.03.2021 and 30.03.2021. Thereafter, the assessment order was passed on 08.04.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.
4.1. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to the notices by the Ay 2018-19 Vimal Pukhraj Jain assessee. The assessee’s explanation is backed by requisite documentary evidence. We are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 272A(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Ld. AO u/s. 272A(1)(b) is hereby deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2025
More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2465/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2464/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 178/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Alkeshbhai Chimanbhai Barot, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 177/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
