RAMLAKHAN,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

ITA 487/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 September 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist and poorly educated, had consulted his counsel and ensured compliance initially. However, due to the AR's resignation and failure to disclose pending matters, the assessee was unaware of electronically issued notices. The Tribunal found sufficient reasons to explain the non-compliance, considering the assessee's level of education and dependence on the AR. The subsequent resignation of the AR and the assessee's lack of knowledge of the issued notices were considered sufficient grounds to explain the non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with electronically issued notices was held to be unwarranted and was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramlakhan, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which upheld a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied under section 272A(1)(d) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee failed to file a return of income. Following the purchase of immovable property, the case was reopened under section 148. Notices under section 142(1) were issued electronically, to which the assessee did not comply. The Assessing Officer added the investment and the difference between consideration and stamp duty value to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that he was an uneducated agriculturist, unaware of tax provisions, and relied on his Authorized Representative (AR) for compliance. He claimed the non-compliance was unintentional due to the AR's resignation without informing him. The Assessing Officer rejected this, stating ignorance of law is no excuse and the assessee is responsible for his AR's actions. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, noting the assessee's lack of participation and seriousness.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- (sic, Rs. 20,000/-) levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law and on facts, considering the assessee's explanation for non-compliance with notices under section 142(1)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that he is an uneducated agriculturist with no knowledge of income tax laws. He appointed an AR, and after the AR's resignation without informing him, he was unaware of electronically issued notices. He claimed the non-compliance was unintentional and beyond his control, citing the negligence of his former AR. He relied on ITAT decisions in Maksood Ali vs. ITO and Triumph International Finance India Ltd. vs. DCIT. He also cited an ITAT Lucknow Bench decision in Devendra Kumar vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that ignorance of law or lack of education is not a valid excuse. The assessee has a legal obligation to comply with statutory notices. The e-compliance mechanism is prescribed by law. The onus of timely compliance lies with the assessee, and subsequent compliance does not absolve earlier defaults. The negligence of the AR cannot be a valid excuse, and the assessee has not shown any bonafide or reasonable cause under section 273B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 56(2)(x),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 13.02.2026, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed under section 272A(1)(d) for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 14.07.2025. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred on fact of the law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is contrary to the facts and in law.

2.

The appellant reserves a right to add/alter/amend any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.”

2.

The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income fo

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →