ANIL MANILAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRLE INT TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal merely on the alleged non-filing of Form No. 35, despite the fact that the appeal was duly instituted, registered, and entertained, multiple notices under section 250 were issued, and comprehensive written submissions on facts and law were filed and therefore impugned dismissal is hyper technical and contrary to settled law procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights 2. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty of Rs40,000 levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the alleged non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1), without appreciating that the impugned notices were sent to on an incorrect, unverified, and non-existent email address namely, fimcuaeateim.ae 3. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that the appellant had, during the course of the assessment proceedings, duly furnished a valid and functional email address anilmbossatyahoo.com on the income tax portal, and that despite the same, the notices continued to be issued to an incorrect, unverified, and non-existent email address fimcuaeateim.ae which was neither provided by nor associated with the appellant, rendering such notices invalid for want of proper and effective service and vitiating the very foundation of the penalty 4. Without prejudice to the earlier grounds, the appellant respectfully submits that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) has been wrongly levied separately in respect of each of the four notices allegedly not complied with, without appreciating that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed only once for a single course of default and not for each individual notice, accordingly, the cumulative levy of Rs.40,000 is excessive and liable to be deleted OR, in the alternative, appropriately restricted 3. The only issue arising in the present appeal is the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.40,000/- for violation of penal provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Heard and perused the material available on records. 5. It is the case of the assessee that the penalty order is per se unmaintainable as the 142(1) notices were issued on an incorrect and non-existent e-mail ID, fimcuae@eim.ae as against correct address of Anilmboss@yahoo.com. The ld. Counsel further argued that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its case on the premise of non-submission of Form- 35. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued that Form-35 was filed, necessary acknowledgment thereof was provided. 6. The ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. Upon consideration of the matter, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not based upon correct understanding of the facts of the case. We have also noted that notice 142(1) were issued on an incorrect and non-existent e-mail ID, fimcuae@eim.ae as against correct address of Anilmboss@yahoo.com. Accordingly, no case of non-compliance by the assessee is made to the statutory notices of the ld. Assessing Officer. We therefore set-aside the order of the lower authorities and delete penalty of Rs.40,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2026.