ABHA RAMESHCHANDRA NAGARSHETH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1066/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to a medical emergency. Since the assessee eventually replied to the show cause notice, the penalty was deemed unwarranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a college professor, faced penalty proceedings for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. She explained the delay was due to her husband's medical emergency and her role as Chief Trustee of a trust.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed for non-compliance with a statutory notice was justified, considering the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1066/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Abha Rameshchandra Income Tax Officer Nagarsheth Ward-3(2)(6), 11/497, Nagarsheth Sheth Vs Surat Pole, Vadachauta, Nanavat, Surat-395003 Gujarat PAN: ABNPN4796Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Abha Rameshchandra Nagarsheth Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 04-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the penalty order passed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20.

I.T. A No. 1066//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Abha Rameshchandra Nagarsheth vs. ITO

2.

The assessee is a college professor and salaried person. The assessee filed her return of income on 19.07.2019 and revised return on 22.09.2019. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on 27.05.2024 to report compliance before on 10.06.2024, the assessee partly replied to the notice thereafter a show cause notice dated 18.10.2024 issued which was not responded. Thereafter another show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 issued was fully replied by the assessee. 2.1 Thereafter penalty proceedings were being initiated u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non compliance to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee explained that she could not respond to the first statutory notice because of continuous medical care of her husband whose was paralytic patient and medical certificate produced for the same. Further, the assessee was the Chief Trustee of a trust and pre-occupied with the activities of the trust and other domestic functions which has resulted in not responding to the statutory notice. However she filed her detailed reply against the show cause notice. The above explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and thereby imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for non compliance to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act.

I.T. A No. 1066//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Abha Rameshchandra Nagarsheth vs. ITO

3.

Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate orders, assessee is in appeal before us, raising the following grounds appeal:-

“1. The Commissioner of Appeals has erroneously decided the appeal and levied a penalty of Rs.10000/- for non-compliance under Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 dated 27-5-24 Despite careful persuasion and showing the reasonable ground, the Assessing Officer has passed the penalty order erroneously. The A. O failed to consider the reasonable cause for non- compliance. Appellants claim for compliance and request for waiver was not accepted. Appellant filed multiple responses against the multiple notices issued by Income Tax authority. The appeal against the lower authority was initiated and completed on 24-1-25. Order was completed on 28-3-25 by the Income Tax Department. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 27-5-24 for which the compliance was made late due to certain uncontrollable circumstances. Appeal for this assessment year was also initiated on 28-3-25 and another appeal was initiated on 24-1-25 with ack.no 877975330200225 for donation and other reasons but still A.O. overlooked the fact and made an order. 2. Several times responses were given under different sections issued from time to time from the year April 2023 and still it continues. As can be seen from the records the appellant has given a full response to the show cause notice on 14-11-24 and 8-12-24 and partial response was also given earlier, all these have not been considered by the IT Dept and have requested the dept. to stop harassing and waive the penalty. The appellant has always given either full or partial response well within the time limit prescribed by the department, and all supporting documents can be produced when required. 3. Non compliance can be also for the problem relating to excel utility and server not functioning and so it was not non compliance but was late compliance.”

5.

We have heard the assessee who appeared as a party in person. The assessee has clearly made out a case for the reasonable cause as provided under Section 273B of the Act namely medical emergency of assessee’s husband who was suffering from paralytic disability.

I.T. A No. 1066//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 4 Abha Rameshchandra Nagarsheth vs. ITO

Further, it is undisputed fact that the assessee replied to the final show cause notice and the same was considered by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. Therefore in our considered view the imposition of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the act is unwarranted and the same is liable to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed.

Order is pronounced under the provisions of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat: Dated 10/07/2026 * Santosh आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →