KRISHAN KUMAR GOEL,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6323/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2021AY 2012-134 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 non-compliance was not intentional, considering the assessee's engagement in numerous other cases and the change of counsel. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice under Section 271(1)(b) during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for willful non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for non-compliance with notices under Section 271(1)(b) was justified when the non-compliance was unintentional and due to genuine reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Smt Vasundhara Upmanyu, CIT DR
Hearing: 20/10/2021Pronounced: 17/11/2021

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee/ Shri Krishan Kumar Goel against the order of the d CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 14.08.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by the ld DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad as per order dated 15.12.2016 penalty levied of Rs. 10,000/- is confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The impugned order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the ld Assessing Officer, DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and facts.

2. The impugned order passed by the ld AO was in absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere intimation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

3. The impugned order passed by the ld AO was passed ignoring the fact that the non compliance was un-intentional, genuine cause looking to number of assessment cases compliances and subsequently in short period properly complied.”

3. Briefly stated the fact shows that the assessee is an individual who was issued notice u/s 153A of the Act on 18.08.2016. Further, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 07.10.2016 fixing the date of hearing on 09.11.2016, on that date the assessee failed to submit the explanation and therefore, a show cause notice was issued u/s 271(1)(b) was issued on 05.12.2016. The above notice was also not complied with and therefore, the ld AO passed an order on

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →