Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to respond to multiple notices issued by the AO under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the assessment for AY 2019-20. This led to the AO completing the assessment under Sections 147, 144, and 144B, and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d).
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was not intentional, due to business stress and financial difficulties, the penalty levied for non-compliance with notices should be viewed leniently. Therefore, a portion of the penalty was confirmed, and a portion was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied for non-compliance with statutory notices under Section 142(1) is warranted when the assessee shows reasonable cause due to business stress, and whether the AO's order was passed without considering pending revision applications.
Sections Cited
142(1), 147, 144, 144B, 272A(1)(d), 273B, 275
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:70/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thavapriya, ITO, Ward 2(1), 4/412, Aathal Thottam Road, vs. Tirupur. Bharathi Nagar, Veerapandi Post, Tiruppur. [PAN:AWFPT-9644-N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) by Virtual ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20, vide order dated 27.12.2024.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The Impugned Order is null and void and unsustainable in law. 2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the consistent submissions of the appellant tiled from time to time. 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer erred in construing the phrase 'each such failure' mechanically and narrowly, without noting and :-2-: ITA. No.:70/Chny/2025 considering that in the absence of any guideline or restriction on the number of notices of the same genus that can be issued during scrutiny proceeding, penalty cannot be levied for non- compliances against notices of the same genus or kind. 4) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering that the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order, without considering and waiting for outcome of the Revision Application filed against the Reassessment Order, violating the effect of Section 275 of the Act. And, for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal may be admitted, duly considered and justice be rendered.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the course of assessment proceedings, various notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued on 25.08.2023, 18.09.2023 and 29.09.2023. However, assessee neither filed his return of income nor responded to the notices of the AO. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings u/s.272A(1)(d) was also initiated for non-compliance of notices issued.
During the assessment proceedings the AO had issued statutory notices to file the required details for completing the assessment. However, the assessee had not responded to the said notices and hence the AO proposed to levy the penalty for non-compliances to the notices u/s.142(1) of the Act and confirmed the penalty of Rs.30,000/- by passing an order dated 15.07.2024 u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act for A.Y. 2019-20. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
After considering submission made by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 27.12.2024 by confirming the penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied by the AO
:-3-: ITA. No.:70/Chny/2025 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us.
The ld.AR submitted that the notices calling for information were issued by the AO continuously in a month time i.e. on 25.08.2023, 18.09.2023 and 29.09.2023. The ld.AR stated that the assessee had incurred huge losses in the business and hence was hiding from the institutions / people to whom he was liable to pay money. Therefore, the assessee could not submit the details called for by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the operation of business itself was a big challenge during that period and hence non-compliance to the notices were not intentional. 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.
Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and prayed for confirming the same.
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.2019-20 during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act has been levied for non-compliances to the three notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act at Rs.10,000/- per notice. On perusal of notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings, we find that all the three notices were sent within a period of 35 days and the ld.CIT(A) has also :-4-: ITA. No.:70/Chny/2025 confirmed the same. Further, as stated by the ld.AR, we note that the assessee had serious stress of the failure of the business and hiding from the lenders and creditors. Therefore, the reason for non compliance to the notice is viewed leniently and hence we cannot countenance the action of the ld.CIT(A). However, we do not support the nonchalant attitude of the assessee and in the present facts of the case we are inclined to confirm the penalty of Rs.10,000/- for default in complying with the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20 by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A), holding that the assessee had shown the ‘reasonable cause’ as per section 273B of the Act.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2025 at Chennai.