SARA GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

ITA 682/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sara Garg, has appealed an order dated 09.02.2026 by the CIT(A), NFAC, which confirmed three penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each, totaling Rs. 30,000/-, levied by the AO under Section 272A(1)(d) on 20.08.2025. The penalties were imposed for the Assessment Year 2023-24 due to the assessee's failure to respond to statutory notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) on 19.06.2024, 29.08.2024, and 03.10.2024. The assessee's contention of non-service was rejected by the AO as notices were sent to the registered email ID. The assessee subsequently participated in assessment proceedings and submitted information in response to notices dated 30.01.2025 and 11.02.2025, and the assessment was completed without additions.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with the initial statutory notices and found the argument of non-receipt of notices to be invalid, as they were delivered to the registered email ID. However, taking a holistic view, the Tribunal noted the assessee's subsequent cooperation and submission of detailed replies and documents, leading to the acceptance of returned income without additions. The Tribunal considered the maximum cumulative penalty of Rs. 30,000/- to be harsh given the circumstances, as the assessee was not completely contumacious or persistently negligent. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty to a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/-. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalties levied under Section 272A(1)(d) are justified, considering the assessee's subsequent compliance and the assessment being completed without additions? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that they did not remain totally non-compliant and actively participated at a later stage, submitting all requisite information and documents in response to notices dated 30.01.2025 and 11.02.2025. Given that the assessment was completed without any additions to the returned income, a lenient view was requested. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the learned Departmental Representative, relied on the orders of the lower authorities, arguing that the failure to comply with the initial statutory notices justified the imposition of penalties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Pronounced: 01.10.2026

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 09.02.2026 confirming three penalties of Rs.10,000/- each as levied by Ld. AO u/s 272A(1)(d) vide order dated 20.08.2025. ITA-682/CHD/2026 2

2.

From case records, it emerges that during assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to respond to statutory notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) on 19.0

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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

All 1,121 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →