MARIAPPAN RAJENDRAN,THIRUVARUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, THIRUVARUR

The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the impugned penalty u/s 271A (1) (d) against the Appellant, as the same is entirely based on an entirely incorrect appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as a misinterpretation of the applicable law. Mariappan Rajendran The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, from being able to respond to the Notices u/s 142(1). Resulting in an ex-parte Order which was contrary to law.

The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in failing to appreciate that the Appellant's actions were not deliberate, and that his circumstances were gravely impacted by COVID-19, which resulted in immeasurable disruptions to statutory compliance.

The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in failing to apply the provisions of Section 273B, which mandate that no penalty shall be imposed where there is a "reasonable cause" for the non- compliance of the Assessee.

The Appellant craves leave to add (or alter) any and all applicable grounds, submissions and/or authorities that the Appellant may submit at the time of hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of return u/s. 139 of the Act. However, during A.Y. 2018-19, as per information available with the Department, assessee has entered into the following financial transactions during the F.Y.2017-18, the details of which are as follows:-

It is observed that the assessee never participated before the authorities below and seems to be non-serious and casual in his approach. The appeal filed before us is also time barred by 16 days. As the penalty u/s. 272A (1) (d) of the Act Mariappan Rajendran pertains to non-compliance of statutory notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act, hence, the same cannot be deleted until unless the assessee is able to make out the case u/s. 273B of the Act. In this case, the Bench is not aware of the outcome of quantum appeal, if any. Nevertheless, as per the provisions of law the penalty u/s. 272A (1) (d) of the Act is not related with the outcome of quantum appeal and as discussed and observed (supra) the assessee never participated in any of the proceedings before the authorities below and before us also, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above observations.

The facts of this appeal are similar to ITA 2183/CHNY/2026, hence, there is no need to repeat the factual observations and background of the case. Although, the penalty u/s. 271AAC (1) of the Act as a direct nexus with the quantum appeal and as mentioned (supra), this bench is not aware of the outcome in quantum appeal, if any. In view of this, considering the facts and observations discussed (supra), the ratio as laid down in ITA 2183/CHNY/2026 will apply mutatis mutandis here also with an exception that if the assessee is able to demonstrate any variation in his favour in quantum appeal, the amount of penalty as calculated u/s. 271AAC (1) of the Act will also be changed accordingly. In view of this, the ground raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above observations.