SHANTI FAIR DEAL PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. CIT(APPEALS)-3,BHOPAL, BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without drawing adverse inferences for non-compliance. The imposition of penalty without establishing deliberate default is not warranted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer imposed penalties on several assessees for alleged non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) during scrutiny assessments. However, the assessments were ultimately completed under Section 143(3) after considering the assessees' submissions.
What were the issues?
Whether penalties for non-compliance with notices are leviable when the assessment is completed on merits after considering submissions. Whether the penalty is sustainable when the assessment proceedings indicate cooperation rather than willful default.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Bench:
The captioned nine (9) appeals have been filed by different assessees for
Assessment Year 2022-23, the details are as under:
ITA No. Appellant/ Impugned order Original Penalty
Assessee proceedings amount
1 878/Ind/2025 Welwet Real Order of first- Penalty order 20,000/-
Estate Pvt. Ltd. appeal dated dated
12.08.2025 19.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
2 883/Ind/2025 Prateek Syndicate Order of first- Penalty order 30,000/-
appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 14.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
3 884/Ind/2025 Pradeep & Order of first- Penalty order 30,000/-
Company appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 19.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2, CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
4 885/Ind/2025 Orange Infracon Order of first- Penalty order 30,000/-
Private Limited appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 14.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
5 886/Ind/2025 BCM Realty Order of first- Penalty order 20,000/-
Private Limited appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 13.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
6 888/Ind/2025 Maarg Realtech Order of first- Penalty order 30,000/-
LLP appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 19.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
7 889/Ind/2025 Shanti Fair Deal Order of first- Penalty order 20,000/-
Private Limited appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 13.12.2023
passed by passed by learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
8 891/Ind/2025 Saaj Club & Order of first- Penalty order 30,000/-
Hotels Private appeal dated dated
Limited 28.08.2025 14.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT, Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
9 926/Ind/2025 Velours Nirman Order of first- Penalty order 20,000/-
Private Limited appeal dated dated
28.08.2025 19.12.2023
passed by passed by
learned CIT(A)-3, learned ACIT,
Bhopal [“Ld. Central-2,
CIT(A)”] Indore [“Ld. AO”]
u/s 272A(1)(d)
In these matters, the Ld. AO has imposed penalties of the amounts as
mentioned in last column of above table, on account of the assessees’
alleged failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 during the course of scrutiny-assessments framed by Ld. AO.
However, the Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to the copies of
assessment-orders placed in case files and demonstrated that in these cases,
the assessments were ultimately framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, after duly considering the submissions made by the assessee during the course of
scrutiny proceedings. It is evident from the record that the AO found no
occasion to resort to ex-parte or best judgement assessment u/s 144, which
itself is indicative of the fact that the assessee had participated in and co-
operated with assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR further brought to our
notice that in identical cases involving group concerns of assessee, the
penalties imposed by respective AOs have already been deleted by the very
same office of Ld. CIT(A). Copies of the following appellate orders were
placed before Bench for reference:
(i) Bravo Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. – order dated 26.02.2026 in Appeal No.
CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-10032/2021-22
(ii) Bravo Realties Private Ltd. - order dated 26.02.2026 in Appeal No.
CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-10027/2021-22
(iii) Prasan & Company – order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Appeal No.
CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-10024/2021-22
It was accordingly urged that the same view ought to be applied in present
appeals and the penalties be deleted.
Ld. DR for revenue, though dutifully supporting the orders of the
lower authorities, was unable to controvert or distinguish the submissions
advanced by Ld. AR nor could he point out any distinguishing feature in the facts of present cases vis-à-vis the matters of group concerns already
decided by Ld. CIT(A) in favour of those concerns/assessees.
We have carefully considered rival submissions of both sides and
perused the material placed on record. We find that the facts and
circumstances in present cases are identical to those in the cases of other/
group concerns referred to above, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has already
granted relief by deleting the penalties. For the sake of ready reference, the
order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in one such case is reproduced hereunder:
The position of law is well-settled that a penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained where the assessment itself has been completed u/s 143(3) upon consideration of the assessee's submissions, and no adverse inference
is finally drawn by AO for non-compliance. The completion of assessment on merits clearly demonstrates that the alleged non-compliance, if any, was
neither willful nor contumacious and the very purpose of the notices stood fulfilled. In such circumstances, the mechanical imposition of penalty without establishing deliberate default on the part of the assessee is neither
warranted nor sustainable in law. That apart, there is no justification to sustain the penalties when the facts are identical to cases of group/other
concerns and the Ld. CIT(A) has already taken a consistent view to delete penalties in those assessees. Therefore, we are inclined to allow present appeals and the penalties imposed by the AO are hereby directed to be
deleted. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 08/05/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 08/05/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026