SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAWAT,BIKANER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sr. ITA No. Asst. Appellant Respondent PAN No. No. Year 1. 951 & 952/Jodh/2025 2020-21 Radhey Shyam Suthar DCIT, Central ATLPS 2021-22 Near Ratan Sagar Circle 5922 R Well, B Sethia Gali, Bikaner Phar Bazar, Bikaner-334001 2. 953/Jodh/2025 2023-24 Lileshwar Bissa DCIT, Central APGPB Near Sita Ram Circle 7758 D Bhawan Outside Bikaner Jassusar Gate, Bikaner-334001 3. 954 & 955/Jodh/2025 2020-21 Punam Chand DCIT, Central BYCPP 2021-22 Dammani Circle 6904 K Pugalio Ki Gali, Bikaner Bikaner City, Bikaner- 334001 4. 956 & 957/Jodh/2025 2020-21 Raja Ram Chayal DCIT, Central AJWPC 2021-22 Near Ratan Sagar Circle 7404 M Well, Ratan Bihari Bikaner Park, Bikaner-334001 5. 958, 959, 960 & 2020-21 Subhash Kumar DCIT, Central ARQPK 961/Jodh/2025 2021-22 Kumawat Circle 5709 B Near Thakar Bikaner Furniture House, Roshni Ghar Chourah, Bikaner-334001

Assessee By Smt. Raksha Birla, CA (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Ayushi Sharma, JCIT-DR (Virtual)

Date of Hearing 06.05.2026. Date of Pronouncement 07.05.2026.

2 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 ORDER PER BENCH: These captioned appeals have been filed by assessees against the separate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Jaipur-5 [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 29.09.2025 and 16.10.2025. 2. The assessees have raised common issues in the grounds of appeal in ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025, which reads as under:-  That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the validity of penalty order passed by the Ld AO.  That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the penalty for delay in compliance of notice understanding the facts and circumstantial evidences as demonstrated by assessee in the light of provisions of law and supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.  That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.  That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in recording the contrary findings in appellate order while confirming the penalty imposed by AO.  That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.  The petitioner prays for justice & relief.

3 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity. The ITA No. 951/Jodh/2025 is taken as a lead case for discussion of the facts and adjudication of the issues. 4. The appellant assessee has filed its return of income for the year under consideration disclosing total income of Rs. 3,73,890/- on 26.07.2022. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (in short the “AO”) has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish details, information/submissions from time to time in all eleven cases where notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO stated that a penalty show cause notice has also been issued for non- compliance of notice u/s 142(1) and levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliances to the said statutory notices. However, the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act accepting the returned income shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,73,890/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee by observing that the appellant has no explanation to offer in the matter and there is no factual basis of the claim raised in the grounds of appeal and accordingly, he confirmed the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the IT Act of Rs. 10,000/-.

4 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it was due to overload of the work of audit and ITR filing and pending assessment proceedings that the early notices remained non-complied during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the detailed compliance have been furnished with a written reply in the course of assessment proceedings with the supporting documentary evidence to assist the AO for the purpose of completion of the assessment after considering the submissions of the assessee. The AO has accepted the returned income of the assessee by passing regular assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the AR contended that the details furnished by the assessee and assessments finally completed u/s 143(3) of the Act evidences that the AO has deemed condoned the non-compliance of the notices by the assessee on the earlier occasions. Accordingly, he requested that the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) may kindly be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand rely on the impugned order, however, she did not controvert the appellants contentions. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the issues of levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) is common on identical facts in all the appeals. It is seen that in the early part of the assessment

5 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 proceedings, the assessee could not make compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the assessee has made detailed compliance by way of furnishing a detailed reply with the support of the documentary evidence in the course of assessment proceedings. From the assessment order passed by the AO for the year under consideration, it is evident that after considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO has observed that the assessee is an individual entity and derived his income from agriculture in addition to that he has also derived income from other sources i.e. interest income which have been shown in the ITR for the year under consideration. The AO further stated in the assessment order that the reply filed by the assessee has been verified from the material available on record and the same has been found tenable and placed on record. After considering the detailed reply filed by the assessee, the AO has passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act after considering the details filed by the assessee in compliance to the subsequent notices and show cause notice. Thus, the earlier non-compliance to the notices is deemed merged with the subsequent replied filed by the assessee as being duly considered by the AO while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.

6 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 9. Thus, it is evident from the assessment order that assessee has made sufficient compliance of the notices issued by the AO culminating into deemed compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) by the AO. In our view, no penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) could be levied when the assessment order has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the AO is deemed to have condoned the absence of assessee or his Authorized Representative (AR) on earlier occasions by subsequently accepting the details furnished by the assessee and that assessment were being completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by considering the details furnished by the assessee. Our view gets support from the decision delivered by coordinate bench Surat in the case of Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 106 to 110/srt/2023 with respect to assessment year 2013-14 to 2017-18 dated 11.05.2023. 10. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the said penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thus the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. The issue raised in ITA Nos. 952 to 961/Jodh/2025 are exactly identical on facts as that discussed in ITA No. 951/Jodh/2025 except variation in the assessed income u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, our observation and finding given in

7 ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 Asst. Years: 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2023-24 ITA No. 951/Jodh/2025 shall apply to ITA Nos. 952 to 961/Jodh/2025 in mutatis mutandis, ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 951 to 961/Jodh/2025 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 07/05/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,