ST JOSEPH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,AMBALA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, AMBALA, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1764/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 September 2026AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the substantial delay of over 5.5 years in submitting the ITR-V, especially after receiving a notice under Section 148, does not constitute a reasonable cause for the default. Therefore, the penalty imposed is confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an educational society, had two PANs and filed an invalid return for AY 2015-16 due to a significant delay in submitting the ITR-V. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 272A(2)(e) for this late filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the ITR-V for an invalid return constitutes a reasonable cause under Section 273B, thereby negating the penalty under Section 272A(2)(e).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(e),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “बी” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी लिलत कुमार, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी िवजय वमा� , लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. VIJAY VARMA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1764/Chd/ 2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 St. Joseph Educational Society बनाम The ITO (Exemption) C/o Tejmohan Singh, Advocate Ward # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh- Ambala 160011 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMAS8435Q अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/09/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/09/2026 आदेश/Order PER VIJAY VARMA, A.M: This is an appeal against the penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposed for late filing of the return. 2. In the present appeal the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,06,200/- levied under section 272A(2)(e). which is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 2. That the authorities below failed to appreciate that the return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed at NIL and the assessment was completed at NIL income, and therefore levy of penalty for a purely technical default is unjustified. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty by mechanically relying on the length of delay, without examining the surrounding circumstances, bona fides of the appellant. abeence of mens rea, and the fact that the appellant is an educational society with no taxable income. 4. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that negligence of an accountant, coupled with procedural confusion arising from dual PANs, constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B, and the appellant ought not to be penalised for acts beyond its direct control. 5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to apply settled law that penalty under section 272A(2)(e) is not automatic and canmot be levied in the absence of deliberate, contumacious OR. mala fide conduct. 6. That the impugned penalty order and appellate order suffer from non-application of mind and deserve to be quashed. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add OR amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard OR. disposed off.

3.

Before the AO it was explained that the assessee had two PAN Nos. i.e; AAMAS8435Q and AACAS3273Q. The assessment order dt. 29/03/2023 was passed for PAN No. AACAS3273Q, as the assessee had not filed the return of income and notice under section 148 was issued. The AO had received an information for cash deposits in the bank account with this PAN. 4. Two PANs were noticed during the course of assessment proceeding and penalty proceeding under section 272B(1) were also initiated. The assessee had filed return for A.Y 2015-16 for the new PAN No. AAMAS8435Q on 29/10/2015. However, this return was treated as invalid as ITR V signed by the assessee was not submitted within the prescribed limit for this PAN. It was received on 28/03/2022 that means the delay in filing ITR V made the return invalid, till an application for condonation of delay is filed and delay condoned by the competent authority. The communication from CPC advised the assessee accordingly. 5. Since for the PAN No. AACAS3273Q, no return was filed and for the PAN No. AAMAS8435Q the return was filed but it was invalid return as the ITR V was not submitted, the penalty proceedings under section 272A(2)(e) were initiated while passing the assessment order dt. 29/03/2023 for PAN No. AAMAS8435Q. The total income was however assessed at NIL, which means no addition was made.

6.

The present penalty has been imposed for the PAN No. AAMAS8435Q. Before the Ld. CIT(A) there has been no compliance. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the assessee’s version apparently from the reply furnished before the AO. The moot question in this case is whether the circumstances establish reasonable cause for failure under section 273B or not. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the explanation furnished by the assessee does not establish the same. The conduct of the assessee in having two PANs is a separate violation of statutory provisions for which the AO has initiated penalty proceeding under section 272(B)(1), we are not concerned with the said issue. 7. The, penalty proceeding for the PAN No. AAMAS8435Q was initiated during the assessment proceeding conducted in the PAN No. AACAS3273Q. Since notice under section 148 was issued in the PAN No. AACAS3273Q and the cash was deposited in the bank account in which the PAN No. AACAS3273Q was given. We do not find any thing illegal in initiation of penalty proceeding in AAMAS8435Q as

both PANs were belonging to the assessee and the fact of having two PANs was noticed during the reassessment proceeding. Moreover, the invalid return was filed I the PAN in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. We are not aware which of the PAN has been cancelled as on date or whether both the PANs still continue. However, we do not find anything wrong in the initiation of penalty proceeding. The issue of reasonable cause is to be seen from the fact that the return in the PAN No. AAMAS8435Q was filed on 29/10/2015, while its ITR V was sent on 28/03/2022 i.e; after a gap of almost 5½ year. Since the notice under section 148 was issued on 29/03/2022, the assessee apparently submitted ITR V of the 5½ years, when it came to know that notice under section 148 is in the process of being issued. By not filing ITR V it escaped the CASS cycle of selection of case for scrutiny also. Such long delay goes against the presumption of reasonable cause by any stretch of imagination. Therefore the penalty imposed is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 03/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- लिलत कुमार िवजय वमा� (LALIET KUMAR) (VIJAY VARMA) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR-9A CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(e)

All 82 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(e) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →