GOVIND KRISHNA SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT,SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 333/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 October 2026AY 2023-20243 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 held that the impugned penalty was imposed for non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee contended that there was no knowledge of these notices, and therefore, the non-compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate, with a bona fide and reasonable cause. Considering the material placed, the submissions, and case laws, the Tribunal was of the considered view that the non-compliance was not deliberate and there was a bona fide reason. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Govind Krishna Shukla, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 27.01.2026, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The appeal challenges an assessment order passed ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee had appealed the penalty order to the CIT(A), who sustained the penalty. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal arises from the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable when the assessment order it stems from has been set aside by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, and consequently, whether the lower authorities' orders deserve to be set aside. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 272A(1)(d) and Section 144/144B). Assessee's contentions: The notices issued under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act never came to the assessee's knowledge because the registered email ID and mobile number belonged to an erstwhile Authorized Representative. Therefore, the non-compliance was not intentional or deliberate, and there was a bona fide and reasonable cause. The impugned penalty should be deleted. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Sachan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Shukla, Sr. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.01.2026, pertaining to the assessment year 2023-24. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“I. Because the assessment order dated 03.03.2025 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 giving rise to the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been set aside by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) NFAC vide order dated 27/01/2026, restoring the matter to the assessing officer for passing the assessment order afresh, the impugned order dated 27/01/2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as penalty order u/s 272A(1)(d) do not survive and consequently the order passed by the lower authorities deserve to be set-aside. 2. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, Delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before DR at the time of hearing of appeal. Rs.0 Total Tax Effect Rs.20,000/-.”

ITA No.333/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 3 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was framed ex parte to the assessee vide order dated 03.03.2025. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite information and details. However, there was no compliance with the said notices. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings separately u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non- compliance with the statutory notices and, thereafter, imposed the impugned penalty vide order dated 04.08.2025. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee and sustained the impugned penalty. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the written submission. In sum and substance, it was submitted that the notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2024 and u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.10.2024 and 12.11.2024 never came to the knowledge of the assessee, as the email ID and mobile number registered with the Department pertained to the erstwhile Authorized Representative who had earlier been looking after the tax matters of the assessee. It was, therefore, contended that the assessee was not aware of the aforesaid notices and, consequently, could not comply with the same. The Ld. Counsel accordingly prayed that, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned penalty may kindly be deleted.

4.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative for the Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities.

ITA No.333/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 3 5. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the record that the impugned penalty has been imposed on account of non- compliance with the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the assessee is that he had no knowledge of the said notices and, therefore, the non-compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate. It has further been submitted that there was a bona fide and reasonable cause for such non-compliance. Considering the material placed before us, the submissions and the case laws relied by the Ld. AR, we are of the considered view that the non-compliance was not deliberate and there was bona fide reason as stated in the written submissions. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA. No.333/LKW/2026 is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 15/10/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT Digitally signed 4. DR VIJAY PAL by VIJAY PAL 5. Guard File SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.10.15 15:51:10 +05'30' By order Sr. Private Secretary

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →