DURAISAMY RAJESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

The impugned Order is illegal, perverse and liable to be qualified

The Learned Appellate Authority erred in not considering the grounds and submission filed by the Appellant.

Without prejudice, the Impugned Penalty is unjust, as the reason for not responding to the notices issued during reassessment was that the reassessment proceeding was nil and void, on violation of Section 151A of the Act.

Without prejudice, the Impugned Penalty is excessive and unfair, as the term “each such failure” must not be associated with each notice of the same species, but restricted to lack of response towards notice(s) issued under different provisions of the Income Tax Act, contemplating different compliances during assessment, given that there is no maximum limit on the Officer to issue number of notices under the same provision for instance Section 142(1).

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19. Based on the information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs.31,50,000/- and had not offered to capital gain tax. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices of the AO and hence concluded the assessment on 12.02.2024 by making certain additions. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings u/s.272A(1)(d) was also initiated for non- compliance of notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 12.07.2023 and 04.09.2023. 5. During the reassessment proceedings the AO had issued statutory notices to file the required details for completing the assessment. However, the assessee had :-3-: ITA. No:673/Chny/2025

The ld. CIT(A) also passed an exparte order on 2016-17 due to non- participation in appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the notices calling for information were issued by the AO to the assessee could not be attended due to health issues and hospitalization. Further, the assessee being senior citizen is not having knowledge of accessing the online portal. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of notices was not warranted as there was a reasonable cause to the assessee as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act. In light of the above, the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) by deleting the penalty levied. 8. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the same since the assessee is a regularly non-compliant on the statutory notices issued by the AO. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee failed to comply to the notices issued by the AO for the A.Y. 2018-19 during the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act has been levied for non-compliances to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act at Rs.10,000/- per notice for 2 notices i.e. Rs.20,000/-. On appeal to the ld.CIT(A), the penalty has been confirmed by not accepting the submissions of the assessee in the appellate proceedings for A.Y.2018-19. On perusal of notices issued by the AO and the submissions made by the assessee, we note that the assessee was having health issues and hospitalized. Further, since the assessee is a senior citizen and is not having knowledge of accessing e-portal of the income tax website. Therefore, in our considered view the non-compliances to :-4-: ITA. No:673/Chny/2025

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT 4. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 5. गार्ज फाईल/GF