SEEMA CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1.1, JAIPUR

ITA 889/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 October 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and restore the issues to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for an opportunity to explain the non-compliance with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel sought one further opportunity to do so. The Tribunal found merit in this request and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the alleged default. For the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's contention that no return was required due to Nil total income in the consequential assessment was not substantiated with documentary evidence and was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine this claim in light of relevant assessment orders and supporting evidence, and to decide afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Seema Chouhan, filed two appeals (ITA No. 889 and 890/JPR/2026) against orders dated 24.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC). These orders confirmed penalties levied under Section 271(1)(b) and Section 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) during assessment proceedings. The penalty under Section 271F was also levied. The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to explain the non-compliance for the Section 271(1)(b) penalty and argued that the Section 271F penalty was not leviable as the original assessment order was set aside and the consequential assessment resulted in Nil total income, meaning no return was required. The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) is valid, considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to explain the default. 2. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is leviable when the original assessment order was set aside and the consequential assessment resulted in Nil total income, thereby not requiring the filing of a return of income. Assessee's Contentions: For the Section 271(1)(b) penalty, the assessee sought a further opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to non-compliance with the Assessing Officer's notice, stating that only one notice was issued by the CIT(A) before disposal. For the Section 271F penalty, the assessee contended that no return of income was required to be filed as the consequential assessment after the original order was set aside resulted in Nil total income, making the penalty not leviable. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the Revenue for either issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 22.10.2026Pronounced: 23.10.2026

Per Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM :-

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders, both dated 24.02.2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”], confirming the penalties levied under sections Asst. Year: 2012-13 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), respectively.

2.

We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act:

3.

In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the Act on 08.10.2024, the assessee submitted before the learned

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 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →