AMARSINH THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 865/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 April 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the penalty for non-compliance of notices was not justified as there was no evidence of notices being served on the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not legally sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist and non-filer, was unaware of assessment proceedings as their PAN was not registered and no notices were received. The assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 read with Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices and lack of awareness of assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Paumil H shah, A.R, Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27/04/2026Pronounced: 29/04/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi

ITA No.865/Ahd/2026 [Amarsinh Thakor vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 –

(hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 06.03.2026 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO during assessment proceedings.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and a non-filer of the return of income. That even the PAN of the assessee was not registered. The assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings carried out against the assessee by the AO. No notice of hearing was ever received by the assessee from the AO. The assessment was completed as an ex parte best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not receive any notice, therefore, there was no question of compliance of the same. He, therefore, has submitted that the impugned penalty levied by the AO for non-compliance of the notices, therefore, was not justified.

4.

Considering the above submissions and noting that the PAN of the assessee was not registered with the AO and there is no evidence that any notice was served upon the assessee physically,

ITA No.865/Ahd/2026 [Amarsinh Thakor vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 –

therefore, the impugned penalty levied by the AO is not legally sustainable and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

This Order pronounced on 29/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/04/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →