PANKAJ NAURIYAL,FOREIGN vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 22/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2019-205 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's assertion of making personal and online submissions during the penalty proceedings remained unrebutted. The AO failed to consider these submissions, both personal and online, before levying the penalty. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing during the assessment proceedings, as he could not receive the various notices. In light of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was leviable on the assessee under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The penalty was accordingly deleted. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pankaj Nauriyal, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in the USA, had bank interest income of Rs. 93,163/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, which was below the basic exemption limit, and thus did not file a return of income. The Department initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 electronically. The assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d). The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed he did not receive the notices due to his NRI status, infrequent portal access, and emails going to spam. He also stated that no physical notices were served. He later discovered the assessment order upon accessing the portal and made submissions during penalty proceedings, which he claims were ignored by the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices due to his NRI status and the notices were sent electronically. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without adjudicating the validity of the service of notice. 3. Whether the burden of proving service was wrongly shifted to the assessee, making the penalty liable for deletion. 4. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-compliance. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that as an NRI, he had a bona fide belief that no return was required. He did not receive electronic notices as he does not maintain an active Indian mobile number, does not regularly access the e-filing portal, and emails went to spam. No physical notices were served as per Rule 127. He discovered the ex-parte assessment order upon accessing the portal and made detailed written and personal submissions during penalty proceedings, which were ignored by the AO, who incorrectly recorded that no response was received. He relied on Section 273B for reasonable cause. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 147,Section 148A(b),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 274,Section 273B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. VIKAS AWASTHY & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Chaudhry, C.A, Shri Raj Chauhan, C.A. and Shri Gagan, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A No. 22/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Pankaj Nauriyal Vs. DCIT 21321, Snag Island Drive E, International Tax Lake Tapps, 98391 Civic Centre, Minto Road Washington, USA -983 910 Delhi – 110 002 PAN No. AFTPN 3182 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Vaibhav Chaudhry, C.A. Shri Raj Chauhan, C.A. and Shri Gagan, Adv. Revenue by Shri Surender Kumar Jatav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This captioned appeal has been filed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi-43 (hereinafter referred as ‘CIT(A)’) order dated 28.11.2025 arising from the penalty order dated 30.09.2025 under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

IT(IT)A No. 22/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2019-20] Pankaj Nauriyal vs. DCIT (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT (Int. Tax.), Circle- (2)(2)(2), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. “That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is bad in law and on facts and liable to be set aside.. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) erred in sustaining penalty without adjudicating validity of service of notice. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly shifted the burden of proving the service on the appellant, which is unjustified and the penalty is liable to be deleted. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider reasonable cause under 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Pankaj Nauriyal, is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) who has been residing at 21321, Snag Island Drive E, Lake Tapps, Washington, USA-98391. For the relevant year (A.Y 2019-20/F.Y 2018-19), the assessee's only taxable Indian income was bank interest of Rs.93,163/- *in his NRO account well below the basic exemption limit of Rs. 2,50,000/-, hence he did not file any return of Income. The Income Tax Department initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) on 27.03.2023, followed by an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 on 27.04.2023. All notices were dispatched electronically through the e-filing portal.

Page 2 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 22/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2019-20] Pankaj Nauriyal vs. DCIT 4. As the assessee did not respond to notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1), the assessment was made ex-parte vide order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 5.02.2025. The AO also levied penalty u.s 272(1)(d). The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) and now the aggrieved assessee is before us. 5. The ld AR submits that as the assessee had no taxable income in India, he was under bona fide belief that no return of income was required to be filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Further as he does not maintain an active Indian mobile number nor does he regularly access the income-tax e-filing portal on account of his non-resident status, he did not receive any of the aforesaid notices. The emails from the Department, while addressed to the correct email ID, went undetected in the spam/junk folder. The assessee did not routinely access the portal given his NRI status and non-filing status. No physical notices were served at the assessee's US address in accordance with Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6. The assessee first accessed the income-tax portal on 01 March 2025, and that too only through the net-banking login facility since he did not have the portal password. Upon accessing, he discovered the ex-parte assessment order and immediately appointed an Authorized Representative. The assessee, during the penalty proceedings,

Page 3 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 22/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2019-20] Pankaj Nauriyal vs. DCIT responded to the notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) wherein his Authorized Representative (CA Vaibhav Chaudhry) filed a detailed written submission physically before the DCIT on 08.08.2025, which was duly received, stamped, and acknowledged by the office of the Assessing Officer. The assessee also personally attended a physical meeting with the Assessing Officer on 08.08.2025, wherein the submissions and supporting documents were discussed in detail. However, despite the duly acknowledged written submission and personal appearance, the penalty order dated 30.09.2025 was passed imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d). Critically, the penalty order incorrectly records that 'no response was received from the appellant' -a finding that is factually incorrect and contrary to the Department's own records (the stamped acknowledgement). 7. Per contra the ld DR relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the assessee’s assertion that he made personal submission before the AO during the penalty proceedings as well as online submissions in the Income tax Portal during the penalty proceedings, has gone unrebutted. We find that the AO neither considered the submissions made personally nor submission submitted

Page 4 of 6

IT(IT)A No. 22/DEL/2026 [A.Ys 2019-20] Pankaj Nauriyal vs. DCIT online and the penalty was levied. We find that the assessee had a reasonable cause of explanation for not appearing before the AO during the assessment proceedings as he could not receive the various notices. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no penalty is leviable on the assessee under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The penalty is hereby deleted. Appeal is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 27.07.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 5 of 6

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 →