JYOTSANABEN CHANDRAKANT PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 27(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI GIRISH AGRAWALAssessment Year : 2017-18
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 Rs.30,000 though there were sufficient and reasonable cause for non-attendance to the said notices.
a) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not fully considering the reasons for noncompliance of the notice during the assessment proceedings.
b) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the appellant was staying at remote village having not internet facility and hence no notice were received by the appellant.
a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order only on the basis of assessment order without considering the submission given by the appellant.
b) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the full submission made before him. The notices were given without providing sufficient time to reply cannot be treated as non-compliance u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act.”
We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, and for the year under consideration, filed her return of income on 28/02/2018, declaring a total income of INR 39,57,150. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to conclude the assessment on best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act, by taking into consideration the response received from the Office of the Sub-