Loading judgment…

YOGITA YASHWANT BAING,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), THANE | BharatTax

YOGITA YASHWANT BAING,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), THANE

ITA 341/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee changed communication address but notices were sent to the old address. The AO levied penalty under Section 271B for non-compliance with two notices. The assessee claimed reasonable cause for non-response.

Held

The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have failed to respond, the penalty for the same default cannot be levied twice. Citing precedent, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 10,000/- for the first default.

Key Issues

Whether penalty under Section 271B can be levied twice for the same default? Whether the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- for the first instance of non-compliance?

Sections Cited

271B, 143(2), 144, 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ BENCH

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh S. Athavale

For Respondent: Shri. Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Hearing: 27/03/2025Pronounced: 28/03/2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (A.M): This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2015- 16/10402629 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income-

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO has levied penalty u/s. 271B on account of non- compliance in respect of two notices issued by him on 04.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the “Taxpayer Annual Summary” document downloaded from the IT portal wherein the assessee has submitted the change of communication address on 29.04.2019. It was accordingly submitted that the notices were served on the earlier address and not on the new address which was also communicated to the AO and as a result, there was reasonable cause in terms of not responding to the notices so issued by the AO. Without prejudice, it was submitted that where the Bench so decide that there was a default on the part of the assessee in terms of responding to the notices, the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as it is the same notice which has been issued subsequently and therefore for the same default, the penalty could not be levied again and in support, reliance was place on Co-ordinate Delhi Benches decision in case of Smt. Rekha Rani V. DCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 131(Delhi-Trib).

3.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that even though the assessee has changed her communication address but given that these days, all communication are sent electronically, the Yogita Yashwant Baing notices must have been sent to the assessee on her e-mail ID duly registered with the department which has not been disputed by the assessee and therefore the plea so taken by the Ld. AR that the notice was not served on the assessee cannot be accepted.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The factum of service of notice on the assessee electronically on her email ID couldn’t be rebutted by the ld AR. At the same time, it is a settled legal proposition that for the same default, the penalty cannot be levied twice and reference can be drawn to the decision of the Coordinate Delhi Benches in case of Rekha Rani (supra) and the relevant findings therein read as under: “5. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), we find that there was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, we find that the default is same and, therefore, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice Issued under Section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee. The provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature and not for earning revenue. Any other view taken shall lead to the imposition of penalty for any number of times (without limits) for the same default of not appearing in response to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. This does not seem to be the intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. In case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the remedy with the Assessing Officer lies with framing of "best judgement assessment" under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed”