JYOTSANABEN CHANDRAKANT PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 27(1), MUMBAI

ITA 68/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the reason for non-compliance with the statutory notices due to her absence in a remote village without internet facility. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the failure, and the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed her return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued, but the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the assessment was completed under section 144, and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed she was in her village in Gujarat without internet access.

What were the issues?

Whether there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices, and if the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13/11/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 272(1)(d) of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Jyotsanaben Chandrakant Patel.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Penalty levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act of R

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 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →