PUSHPA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1325/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with the notices was not intentional on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty imposed for non-compliance was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not receive notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) as they were sent to the email ID of the tax consultant, who failed to inform the assessee. This led to an ex-parte assessment order. Subsequently, the CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is leviable for non-compliance with notices when the assessee was not aware of the notices due to the tax consultant's failure to communicate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”)dated 23.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1325/JPR/2025 Pushpa Devi Sharma 2. The assessee, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer (in short, “the AO”) in imposing a penalty u/s 272(A)(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance with the notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Admittedly, no physical notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. The notices were sent on the Email ID of the Tax Consultant, which did not come to the knowledge of the assessee. The said Tax Consultant did not inform the assessee about any such notice received on his Email. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the aforesaid reason, the assessment order was passed by the AO ex parte, as a best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who remanded the matter to the AO for decision afresh.

3.

Considering the above submissions, the learned Counsel has demonstrated that the non-compliance with the notices before the AO was not intentional. In view of this, the levy of impugned penalty is not justified and the same is ordered to be deleted. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 18/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 18.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1325/JPR/2025 Pushpa Devi Sharma

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →