VINOD SINGH YADAV,BALLIA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.890/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav, vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Village Bajahan, Shankarpur Income Tax-3, Lucknow-New Majhauli, Ballia-277203 PAN: ABVPY3409P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR Date of hearing: 02.03.2026 Date of pronouncement: 14.05.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 7.11.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) for the assessment year 2019-20 on 8.08.2024. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of Assessment is bad in law and being passed by the ld. AO without assuming proper Jurisdiction. 2. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Assessment is bad in law and being passed by the Ld. AO without considering the fact that contact details of the appellant was outdated i.e. email id and phone number of the appellant was not updated on the Income Tax Portal. 3. Because on the facts and its the circumstances of the case the order of the Assessment is bad its law and being passed by the Ld. AO without considering the fact that during the assessment proceedings for the said assessment year, appellant was retiring from KRC RANIKHET UK UNIT of the Indian Army under the Ministry of Defense, Government of India

ITA No. 890/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav

ITA No. 890/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav It was submitted that the assessee was an Ex-serviceman who retired from KRC RANIKHET UK UNIT of the Indian Army and had been a regular tax payer in previous years. During the assessment year in question, the employer of the assessee i.e. KRC RANIKHET UK UNIT had duly deducted the tax from the total salary income of the assessee after considering the deduction taken up under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, as evident from Form 16 issued to the assessee. It was submitted that after considering the deductions claimed under section 80C, the due amount of TDS was duly rejected and paid to the Government, without considering the rebate available to the assessee under section 87A. That as a result of non-filing of income, proceedings were initiated but had the section 87A been considered, the taxable income of the assessee would have been nil. The assessee had filed appeal against the penalty order as he was of the opinion that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. However, the ld. CIT(A) was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee. He noted that the assessee was a non-filer, he was non-responsive even after the issue of notice under section 148. He was also unresponsive to the notices issued under section 142(1) and in the absence of such compliance, the Assessing Officer was not able to reconcile the assessee’s claims of deduction under Chapter VI-A as contended, with supporting proofs. He held that enough opportunity had been given to the assessee to be heard both during the assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings, but the assessee had not made any compliance to the same. Accordingly, he held that there was no infirmity in either the initiation or the levy of penalty and he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied on account of non-compliance to the notices under section 142(1). 4. The assessee is aggrieved at this levy of penalty upon him and has accordingly come in appeal before us. M/s Gurneet Kaur, Advocate 3

ITA No. 890/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the contact details of the assessee i.e. the email ID and the phone number were outdated and had not been updated on the Income Tax Portal. As a result of this, the assessee did not receive the notices that were sent to him. Furthermore, the assessee was a retired person and did not frequently consult his email. He was an Ex-serviceman and had been an honest taxpayer in the past and had no intention of evading taxes or causing any Revenue loss to the Government of India. Furthermore, since his tax had been deducted at source, he had not filed a return of income but if the deduction under section 87A were considered, his tax liability would have been nil. In view of these facts, it was submitted that there were sufficient grounds to waive the levy of penalty under section 273A of the Income Tax Act. She prayed that the said penalty may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) submitted that the assessee had not given any proper reply as to why he had not filed a returns or not made compliance to the various notices issued to him by the Assessing Officer. Even when confronted with notices during penalty proceedings, he had only asked for the matter to be kept in abeyance till decision in first appeal and did not submit any reason for the non-compliance. In the circumstances, the story of email ID and phone number not being updated and not checking of email seem to be an afterthought and the penalty levied deserved to be confirmed. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the assessee had submitted before us that the reason why he was not able to make compliance with the various notices during assessment proceedings was because his regular email address and phone number had not been updated on the Income Tax Portal. If that be so, again this would

ITA No. 890/LKW/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Vinod Singh Yadav explain the failure to receive notices sent by the Assessing Officer. We note that the assessee is a residing in a village in Ballia district and is a senior citizen. We further note that upon his retirement from the Army, tax was deducted at source for the relevant assessment and Form 16 was issued to the assessee and since then, he has been receiving pension from the Army on which tax is deducted. In view of the totality of these aforesaid circumstances, we observe that there are plausible reason to explain the non-compliance to the notices, if the notices were issued electronically and did not reach the assessee. It appears from the penalty order that all the notices were issued through the ITBA Portal and none were served upon the assessee physically. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is not in the habit of checking his emails regularly and therefore, even subsequently, could not keep track of the notices. In the circumstances, we feel that there are plausible reasons to explain the non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and therefore, we delete the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer for failure to comply notices under section 142(1) that were issued by him through the Income Tax Portal. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Orders pronounced on 14.05.2026 in the open Court. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/05/2026 Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S. 5