KULDEEP SINGH PLOT NO 44 BABA BUDHA JI AVENUE SULTANWIND ROAD AMRITSAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, TARN TARAN AAYKAR BHAWAN SARHALI ROAD TARN TARAN, TARN TARAN

ITA 327/ASR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 September 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kuldeep Singh, filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 70,000. This penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The penalty was imposed for seven instances of non-compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) on different dates. The assessee's primary contention was that a single consolidated penalty order for multiple defaults was impermissible. Furthermore, the assessee claimed that the notices were not served because the address used by the AO pertained to a property sold by the assessee in 2006. The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the penalty was imposed after obtaining necessary approvals.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the imposition of a single consolidated penalty order for seven separate failures under Section 272A(1)(d) is bad in law. The Tribunal reasoned that the provision, particularly the phrase "each such default or failure," implies that each instance of non-compliance is distinct and independent. Therefore, the AO should have considered the reasons for each failure separately, issuing separate show-cause notices and passing separate penalty orders. The Tribunal found that the consolidated order was not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 70,000 imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the imposition of a single consolidated penalty order for seven distinct defaults under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally permissible? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that Section 272A(1)(d) mandates separate consideration for each failure, implying that a consolidated order for multiple defaults is not valid. The assessee also contended that the notices were not served as the address used by the AO was incorrect, relating to a property sold by the assessee on 09.11.2006. Revenue's contentions: The revenue relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), submitting that the penalty was imposed after obtaining the required approvals under the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SH. GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, upheld by ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, in the order dated 18.02.2026. 2. In the present appeal, penalty of Rs.70,000/- has been imposed u/s 272A(1)(d), confirmed by the order of the ld. CIT(A) against which assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

2 Kuldeep Singh A.Y. 2017-18

2.

1 The moot point of contention by the assessee is that in the present case, penalty for seven defaults have been imposed by one common/consolidated impugned penalty order which is not permissible under section 272A(1)(d). From the perusal of the impugned penalty

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 →