BHAGYESHREE CHANDRASHEKAR SAKLE ,PUNE vs. ITO WD-9(3) , PUNE

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For AY. 2019-20, she did not file return of income as her income was below taxable limit. During the relevant AY. the assessee was working in Bank Mitra Scheme on behalf of Bank of India and acting as an agent and entitled for commission. The activity facilitated the customers of Bank of India by use of the outlet of the assessee to carry out banking functions such as deposits/withdrawals of cash etc. For this activity, the assessee was entitled for commission from bank. For this, the assessee

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC though condoned the delay, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Ld.AO u/s. 271A(1)(d) of the Act, observing as under:

Dissatisfied by such order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal:

The Ld.AR submitted that non-compliance to the notice issued by the Ld.AO u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dt. 09-10-2023 was not intentional. Reiterating the reasons stated before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for the said non compliance, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a person of very limited means and knowledge and her income is below the taxable limit. She had not accessed the income tax e-portal and was completely unaware of the various notices issued to her in connection with the re-assessment proceedings. The assessee was also not aware about the passing of the assessment order and came to know about the same only when the penalty order was passed and the assessee started receiving calls for recovery of demand. Soon thereafter, she filed the appeal before the 4 Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the correct perspective, and therefore, urged that the penalty levied by the Ld.AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC be deleted.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that since the assessee failed to make any compliance to the various notices issued by the Ld.AO both during the assessment and penalty proceedings including the impugned notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee while confirming the penalty levied by the Ld.AO.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271A(1)(d) of the Act for the reason that the assessee failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dt.09-10-2023 issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that non-compliance to the said notice was not deliberate, but resulted due to the reasons stated above. He has therefore, prayed that since the assessee had bonafide reasons/explanation for non-compliance to the notice issued by the Ld.AO, therefore, the penalty imposed by him and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should be deleted. We find that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Ld.AO for the reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Admittedly, there was non-compliance to the notice issued u/s. 142 of the Act, dt. 09-10- 2023 pursuant to which, the Ld.AO has levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for the said non-compliance u/s. 271A(1)(d) of the Act. However, we find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee

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

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////