VIDIT GARG,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, GWALIOR

PER BENCH:

ITANo.586/Ind/2026:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the Income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a

second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3,Bhopal/IT/11050/2014-15 dated

Page 1 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 31.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act

which is hereinafter referred as the “Impugned Order”. The

Relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16 and the corresponding

Previous Period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. This

appeal no. is taken as a lead case amongst the other

connected appeal(supra).

2.1) That as and by way of an Assessment Order made u/s 153C

rws 144 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 to AY 2021-22 dated

30/03/2023 passed by the Dy Commissioner of Income Tax

(Central)-Gwalior station-Bhopal the total Income of the Assessee

was computed and Assessed at Rs 4,41,260/- [AY 2015-16]

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Consolidated Impugned

Assessment Order”. In the said Quantum Assessment Order i.e.

“Consolidated Impugned Assessment Order” on the Internal Page

3 it is recorded that “the Questionnaire u/s 142(1) for AY

2015-16 to 2021-22 were issued on 07/02/2023 and

14/02/2023 and duly served upon the Assessee through e

Proceedings and on registered e-mail id of the Assessee on

Page 2 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 Viditgarg2011@gmail.com”. It is further recorded that “in

Compliance to the notices issued by this office, the Assessee

remained Non compliant”. It is also further recorded that

“further, show cause notice u/s 144 was issued on

25/02/2023 and duly served upon the Assessee vide e-

Proceedings. However, no reply was furnished by the

Assessee in respect of the same. Hence the Provisions of

Section 144 of the Income Tax are attracted in this case”.

2.2) That as and by way of an order under Section 271(1)(b) of

the Act bearing Number:- ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2023-

24/105504685(1) dated 22/08/2023 a penalty of Rs 10,000/-

for AY 2015-16 was imposed on the Assessee for Non

Compliance with Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated

07/02/2023 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. That the aforesaid to

order is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order

u/s 271(1)(b)” of the Act.

2.3) That in the aforesaid “Impugned Penalty Order” dated

22/08/2023 it is also recorded by the Ld AO that the Assessee

Page 3 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 failed to give any explanation to the Notice u/s 142(1) dt

07/02/2023(Supra). It is also recorded that Assessee was issued

a show cause Notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on 25/02/2023

and was called upon to show cause as to why the Penalty u/s

271(1)(b) should not be imposed upon him for Non Compliance of

Notice u/s142(1) dated 07/02/2023, however the Assessee did

not comply with the same too. Even an another show cause

Notice u/s 271(1)(b) was too issued to the Assessee on

10/08/2023 which too was not complied with. The Ld AO

therefore concluded that Assessee has deliberating not

complied with the Notice u/s 142(1) dt 07/02/2023 and has

not cared to reply and to offer any explanation to the above show

cause Notices too. Therefore, under these facts and

circumstances the Ld AO imposed a Penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s

271(1)(6) of the Act for AY 2015-16 for Non Compliance to Notice

dt 07/02/2023 u/s 142(1) of the Act.

2.4) That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act” prefers

the first Appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld CIT(A) who

Page 4 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first Appeal of the

Assessee on the grounds and the Reasons stated therein. The

core ground and the reasons for the Dismissal of the first Appeal

was as under:-

3.1. Ground No.1 & 2:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. 3.1.1. I have considered the penalty order, issues involved in assessment and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the penalty order. In this case, penalty a sum of Rs.10,000/- was levied on appellant u/s 271(1)(b) of the 'Act. During the search assessment proceedings it has been observed that the assessee did not comply to the notices and did not furnish any reply despite of numerous opportunities provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice under section (1) of Section 142 of the 'Act and levied penalty of amount Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b)of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16. 3.1.2. In the present case, despite of providing ample opportunities by the AO, the assessee did not comply by furnishing requisite information. It shows lack of proper cooperation on the part of the appellant. The AO has given sufficient time to furnish reply and if the appellant convey the reason of reasonable delays then generally the AO always allows additional times. Besides, many a times it is the tactics of the appellant to delay the proceedings so that AO does not have much time left to complete the proceedings. The Act clearly envisages proper compliance on the part of the assessee so that assessment can be completed in time bound manner. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall attitude and non- compliance of the assessee during assessment proceedings as well as before me, I clearly find there is a fault on the part of the appellant and the AO has rightly invoked penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act for the relevant period.

Page 5 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 3.1.3. In view of above discussions, 1 find that there is no merit on the grounds raised by the appellant. Therefore, the levying of the above penalty is proper, fully justified and in accordance with the provisions under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal on ground nos.1 & 2 are dismissed.

3.2 Ground No. 3:- Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged that the principles of natural justice was not followed by the AO. I find from the assessment and penalty order that the AO has followed due procedure by providing ample opportunities to the appellant. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant before me that principles of natural justice were not followed by the AO is not correct. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is dismissed.

3.3. Ground_ No. 4:- Being general in nature, this ground does not require any specific adjudication.

2.5) That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has preferred the Instant Second Appeal before this Tribunal and

has raised the following grounds of Appeal in the form No:-36

against the “Impugned Order” which are as under”:-

Page 6 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 being in contravention to principles of natural justice be directed to be quashed . 4. Residual –The Appellant prays to add, amend any or all grounds at the time of hearing”.

3 Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

24/06/2026 when the Ld AR for and on the behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us and Interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal and not proper. It is in

the violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It therefore

deserves to be set aside. The Ld AR submitted that there are in

total 7 Appeals listed to day from ITA NO:- 586/IND/2025, (AY

2015-16), ITA NO:- 587/IND/2025, (AY 2016-17), ITA NO:-

588/IND/2025, (AY 2017-18), ITA NO:- 589/IND/2025, (AY

2018-19), ITA NO:- 590/IND/2025, (AY 2019-20), ITA NO:-

591/IND/2025, (AY 2020-21), ITA NO:- 592/IND/2025, (AY

2021-22), wherein the issue of Penalty of Rs 10,000/- in each

year u/s 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) are involved. Case of Non

Compliances are made out against the Assessee in all the 7

Appeals. In this regard the Ld AR submitted that the Notice(s)

were not received by the Assessee. It was also submitted that on

Page 7 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 one day total 7 Notice(s) were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and

hence there was a Non Compliance on the part of the Assessee.

Had the Ld AO would have given more opportunities to the

Assessee perhaps the assessee would have complied with the

same, subject however to proper service of Notice(s) in this

regard. Non Compliance(s) therefore were not deliberate.

3.2 Per Contra the Ld DR stated that orders of the lower

authorities are well reasoned & are speaking perse. Assessee has

totally remained Non Compliant both in the Quantum

Proceedings as well as in the Penalty Proceedings any new &

fresh explanation at this belated stage is not Permissible in law

when the facts and circumstances are clear and same are

recorded in the orders of the lower authorities clearly. Hearing

was then over and concluded.

4 Observations, Finding and Conclusions

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“Impugned Order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

Page 8 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and further

upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld AR and the Ld DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that the

“Impugned Assessment Order” (quantum) which is a

“consolidated order” for A.Y 2015-16 to AY 2021-22 was under

Section 153C rws 144 of the Act. In the said order factum of Non

Compliance in fact to the two Notice(s)u/s 142(1) of Act dated

07/02/2023 and 14/02/2023 are clearly recorded. It is required

to be noted that in the Act for each default the penalty is of

Rs.10,000/-. The Ld. AO has confined the penalty proceeding to

only one notice dated 07.02.2023 & has left notice dated

14.02.2023 in the penalty proceedings. Even the show cause

Notice u/s 144 dated 25/02/2023 was not compliant by the

Assessee. In brief Assessee was non compliant throughout. Even

in the “Impugned Penalty Order” of the Ld AO the Assessee was

non complaint as no reply was even filed to the show cause

Notice whereby the Assessee was called upon to show cause why

Penalty should not be imposed upon him. Basis above material

Page 9 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 the Ld CIT(A) has rightly sustained the Impugned Penalty Order

of the Ld AO and we find that the same is in the order as we see

no irregularity and or illegality in the same. The Argument

canvassed by the Ld AR are meritless and are not supported by

any material on the records. Under these facts and

circumstances we sustain the Impugned Order as same is not

tarnished basis any cogent material/reasons.

4.4) In ITA No:- 587/IND/2025 AY 2016-17 the facts and

circumstances are almost identical and similar. Therefore the

Impugned Order therein is too sustained. [u/s 271(a)(b) ].

4.5) In ITA No:- 588/589/590/591/592/IND/2025 the facts and

circumstances are almost identical and similar. Therefore the

Impugned Order therein too are sustained, [u/s 271A(1)(d) ].

4.6) All the above appeals were heard together with the consent of

both the parties. In view of the Premises set out hereinabove we

sustain the Impugned Orders of the Ld CIT(A) respectively from

AY 2015-16 to 2021-22 in above listed appeals and dismiss the

Appeals of the Assessee.

5) Order

Page 10 of 11

Vidit Garg ITA No. 586 to 592/Ind/2026 AY-2015-16 to 2021-22 5.1) In result the Impugned Orders in all the above Appeals

are sustained.

5.2) The Appeals of the Assessee are Dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on 06.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (PARESH M. JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/Dated : 06/07/2026 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 11 of 11