M/S ANAYA GLOBAL SUPPLIERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 911/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2022AY 2015-163 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 noted that although the compliance was belated, there was no deliberate default by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with a notice issued under section 142(1) by the AO, leading to a penalty. The assessee claimed the notice was misplaced and later complied belatedly.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is justified for belated compliance with a notice, when the delay was due to a misplaced notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-16, Mumbai in relation to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. M/s Anaya Global Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. 10,000/- for AY 2015-16. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice.

2.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that Assessee Company filed its return of income on 29.09.2015 for AY 2011-12. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 142(1) was issued which according to AO, assessee did not complied with and for such non-compliance, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for Rs. 10,000/- has been levied by the AO vide order dated 29.11.17.

3.

Ld. CIT (A) noted that even during the course of appellate proceedings, notices were sent through e-mail, however none of these notices through mail has been responded. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that assessee had submitted before the AO that the notice issued on 03.07.2017 was misplaced by the security guard and when assessee could find the said notice, the same was duly complied with on 25.10.2017. Accordingly, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) after considering the replies and details furnished by M/s Anaya Global Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. assessee. Though, the assessee has responded belatedly, but there is no default on the part of the assessee, therefore penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is directed to be deleted.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →