CHANDRAJIT PRAHALDSINH RATHOD,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(9), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 937/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 July 2026AY 2017-182 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 failure to respond to notices was not intentional, as they were unaware of the notices being issued. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-response to notices during assessment proceedings. The assessee claimed the notices were not received or escaped attention, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for non-response to notices is justified when the assessee claims lack of awareness of the notices. Whether the penalty was levied without proper opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Tinish Mody, AR
Hearing: 29/07/2026Pronounced: 31/07/2026

आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 26/01/2026 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has contested the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-responding to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) during the assessment proceedings. The plea of the assessee is that the said notices issued by the AO did not come to the notice of the assessee. That no

ITA No.937/Ahd/2026 Chandrajit Prahaldsinh Rathod vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 2 notice though physical mode was served. The notices through email issued by the assessee, if any, escaped the attention of the assessee resulting into passing of the ex-parte best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that even, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty without issuing any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

Considering the above submissions of the assessee, that the assessee was not aware of issuing of notice by the AO, therefore, the default on the part of the assessee in not responding to the notices of the AO does not seem to be intentional, therefore, the impugned penalty order is order to be deleted.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 31/07/2025 Tanmay, Sr. P.S. TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु� अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)-(NFAC) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. , , 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →