YOGESH KUMAR DWIVEDI,VRINDAVAN vs. ITO, MATHURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 511/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 October 2026AY 2023-247 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 penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to comply with the notices by the stipulated dates, the Assessing Officer (AO) had afforded an opportunity by issuing a second notice, indicating a willingness to receive the information. Crucially, the assessee did furnish the required information on October 21, 2024, which was taken into account by the AO while framing the assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee ultimately complied and the information was used in the assessment, initiating penalty proceedings for a technical breach, especially after an opportunity was given, was not appropriate. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents, including the decision in Bundelkhand University (supra), which held that for mere technical or venial breaches, penalty should not be levied when full compliance is made before the assessment is finalized. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. The issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2023-24. The appeal challenges a penalty of Rs. 20,000 levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed for non-compliance with two notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on July 18, 2024, and August 9, 2024, which sought specific information by August 2, 2024, and August 19, 2024, respectively. The assessee failed to furnish the information by the stipulated dates. Subsequently, the assessee submitted a reply on October 21, 2024, which was incorporated into the assessment order dated March 4, 2025. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹20,000 levied under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee making compliances later on with full and true disclosure of all primary facts? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the penalty is bad in law and liable for deletion. The assessee contended that all required information was furnished on October 21, 2024, before the completion of assessment proceedings and before the assessment order was passed on March 4, 2025. The assessee's reply was made part of the assessment order. Therefore, penalty proceedings could not be initiated. The assessee relied on the decision in Bundelkhand University V Assessment Unit/DCIT (Exemption), (A.Y. 2018-19) (Agra-Trib). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the penalty was rightly levied for non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on two occasions and supported the impugned order, praying for the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 27.10.2026Pronounced: 28.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 511/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi, V ITO, 82, Mathura, Vrindaban Mathura-281121 Bangar, Vrindavan-281121 PAN: AFWPD4124P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 27.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 28.10.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2022-23/10527694 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ NFAC(Delhi) [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2023-24, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal against the penalty order dated 11.09.2025 passed u/s 272A(1)(d).

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

2.

The brief facts state that during the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18.07.2024 was issued, seeking certain accounts, documents and informations pertaining to A.Y. 2023- 24 on the prescribed proforma to produce the same on or before 02.08.2024. Assessee failed to furnish the required informations by date fixed. Thereafter, another notice dated 09.08.2024 u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, seeking the same information with reference to earlier notice dated 18.07.2024 u/s 142(1) of the Act, on or before 19.08.2024. However, assessee failed to furnish the required informations/ documents on the dates fixed in the aforesaid notices. Subsequently, the assessee submitted reply against the notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 143(2) of the Act dated 18.07.2024 on 21.10.2024. The assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for failing to comply the aforesaid notices dated 18.07.2024 and 09.08.2024 during the assessment proceedings. During the penalty proceedings, assessee submitted reply but not to the satisfaction of the assessing officer who levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each non- compliance. Accordingly, total penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was levied on the assessee, vide penalty order dated 11.09.2025 passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

3.

Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹20000 levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had made all compliances later on and full & true disclosure of all primary facts further The AO, speaking order u/s under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act was passed, no proceedings were initiated u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, in the penalty order that the appellant had committed default by not complying with the requirements of notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently liable to be levied a penalty for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is erroneous based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the same needs to be quashed/deleted in the interest of natural justice and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. ……..” 5. Perused the records. Heard ld representative for the appellant assessee and ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 6. The main point on the basis of the grounds raised under appeal is as to whether ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, ignoring the fact that the appellant made compliance later on with full and true disclosure of all required facts/ documents etc.?

3 | P a g e

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

7.

Ld AR for the appellant assessee has submitted that the assessee filed reply and furnished the relevant informations requisitioned vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.07.2024 on 21.10.2024, before the completion of the assessment proceedings and before passing the assessment order dated 04.03.2025. Ld AR further submits that the assessee’s reply dated 21.10.2024 has been made part of the assessment order on the basis of which the assessment was completed. Ld AR has further submitted that since the assessee had complied the notice u/s 142(1) at a later date, the penalty proceedings could not be initiated against him and has referred order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this tribunal in Bundelkhand University V Assessment Unit/DCIT (Exemption), (A.Y. 2018-19) (Agra-Trib), 2025 ITL 4995, in support of his arguments. 8. Ld Sr DR has submitted that the impugned penalty has rightly been levied for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on two occasions. Ld DR thus supports the impugned order. Prayed to dismiss assessee’s appeal. 9. It is undisputed fact that the assessee received both the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 18.07.2024 and 09.08.2024, which are part of assessee’s paper book at page nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to 8 respectively.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

We note that the assessing officer, while issuing second notice dated 09.08.2024, did not intend to initiate any penalty proceedings against the assessee for non compliance of earlier notice dated 18.07.2024, rather in the subsequent notice dated 09.08.2024, the assessing officer made reference of earlier notice issued u/s 142(1) indicating to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to submit the desired details/ documents mentioned in the previous notice. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the assessing officer did not make up his mind but afforded an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required informations. Though, the assessee failed to furnish the required informations in compliance to the subsequent notice dated 09.08.2024 by 19.08.2024 fixed in the notice, however, assessee has undisputedly furnished the required information before the assessing officer vide reply dated 21.10.2024, which is part of assessee’s paper book at page no. 9 to 10. Since the assessee furnished the requisite details which were taken into account by the assessing officer, while framing the assessment, the penalty proceedings could not have been initiated against the assessee for levying penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, mainly for the technical reasons despite having afforded

5 | P a g e

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

opportunity to assessee, subsequent to the first notice dated 18.07.2024. 11. The coordinate bench of this tribunal in Bundelkhand University (supra) has, on the similar facts, held as under: “I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Assessee University has been formed and enacted through the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973 and fully governed by the Bundelkhand University First Statutes, 1977 as enacted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under the powers conferred under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973. The Assessee University is existing solely for educational purposes only and not for the purpose of profit. The surplus of receipts over expenditure are accumulated over the years and such surplus had been ploughed back to the coffers of the Assessee University for educational purposes. The Assessee University had received direct grant from the Government of Uttar Pradesh at the time of formation of University whereby land and expenditure incurred to create building, other infrastructure facilities etc was wholly funded by Government of Uttar Pradesh to run educational institution and University is regularly receiving the grant from Government from time to time in every financial year. The Learned AO however observed that the Assessee had received only 2.39 percent of total receipts as grant from the Government and hence would not comply with the provisions of section 10(23C) (iiiab), (iiiac) and (iiiad) of the Act. The Learned AO observed that the Assessee had not filed its return of income for assessment year 18-19 under section 139(1) of the Act which was mandatory for the Assessee trust or society to claim exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly the Learned AO proceeded to frame the assessment of the Assessee University as an Association of Persons (AOP). Even though there were certain failures on the part of the Assessee in furnishing the requisite information before the Learned AO, but ultimately all the details relevant for framing of assessment had indeed been filed by the Assessee University before the completion of assessment proceedings which fact is also admitted by the Learned AO in page 3 of his order. But still penalty was initiated and levied by the Learned AO under section 272 A(1)(d) of the Act for initial failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the requisite details at the time of assessment proceedings. I find that ultimately the assessment was completed only under section 143(3) of the Act after taking into account all the requisite details filed by the assessee. Even the fact of assessee furnishing all the details had been conceded by the Learned AO in page 3 of his order. Hence, for a mere technical venial breach committed by the Assessee, in my considered opinion, the Assessee should not be invited with the levy of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. My view is further

6 | P a g e

ITA No.511/Agr/2026

fortified by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shmshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. Asstt. DIT [2008] 115 TTJ 419 (Delhi). Similar view was also taken by the Coordinate Bench of Raipur Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Modi v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 236 (Raipur-Trib.)/ITA No. 298/Rpr/2024 for assessment year 20-21 and Coordinate Bench of Cochin Tribunal in the case of Jomon John v NFAC [IT Appeal No. 578/Coch /2024] for assessment year 2017-18 dated 29-04-2025.” 12. In view of what has been stated hereinabove and respectfully following the judicial precedents referred above, we hold that this is not a fit case for levying penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. We direct the ld assessing officer to delete the impugned penalty. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is liable to be allowed.

13.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 28.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 28.10.2026 *Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

7 | P a g e

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 →