K 629 MERKUPATHY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY,TIRUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Having aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer for levying penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since there was no response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, having no alternative, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in para 5.2.1 of the impugned order.

The ld. AR Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA submits that there is sufficient cause under section 273B of the Act. The ld. AR also submits that the assessee has not received any e-mail from the Assessing Officer, due to which, the assessee could not represent its case before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR vehemently argued that there is sufficient cause under section 273 of the Act. Further, she submits that the activities of the society carried out by appointed Secretary. He was promoted to Secretary by experience and does not have enough knowledge about the income tax matter. Further, in quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A) remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for his consideration.

The ld. DR Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and drew our attention to para 5.2.1 of the impugned order.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that the Assessing Officer, during the course of penalty proceedings, has given ample opportunity to the assessee for compliance. Admittedly, there was no response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) of the Act and the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Para 2 of the penalty order clearly shows that one notice under section 143(2) of the Act and 2 notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued, but, however, there was no response to the said notices. Further, the Assessing Officer gave ample opportunities in issuing notice dated 20.09.2022 in initiating proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. However, we find no response from the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer issued 2 show-cause notices dated 20.09.2022 and 27.10.2022, but, however, there was no response from the assessee. Further, for non- compliance to statutory notices under section 143(2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued a letter dated 06.01.2023 and 01.02.2023 on its all email IDs available on record, but, however, there was no response from the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer served notice on the Secretary of the society, but, however, we find no compliance at all made by the assessee. Before first appellate authority, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee did not provide evidence of any bonafide effort to either to comply with the notices or communicate its difficulties to the income tax authorities. For better understanding, we reproduce herein below para 5.2.1 of the impugned order: 5.2.1 The obligation to respond to notices issued under the income Tax is statutory, The appellant's inability to hire a qualified accountant does not absolve it from its duty to comply with legal requirements. Adequate arrangements could have been made to ensure timely compliance, such as engaging external professionals or seeking extensions, which were not demonstrated in this case. The department provides sufficient time and multiple opportunities for compliance during e-proceedings. The appellant did not demonstrate any proactive steps to address the situation despite being aware of its lack of resources. Ignorance or unavailability of personnel cannot be used as a valid excuse, as taxpayers are presumed to have knowledge of their legal obligations under the Act. Non- compliance with notices hampers the assessment process and disrupts the administration of tax laws. Such behavior cannot be condoned without reasonable cause, which the appellant failed to establish satisfactorily. Further, the appellant did not provide evidence of any bona fide effort to either comply with the notices or communicate its difficulties to the Income Tax Authorities in a timely manner. The explanation provided does not qualify as a "sufficient cause" under the law for the failure to comply with notices. The appellant's justification lacks merit and does not warrant the waiver of the penalty. Based on the above, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is confirmed, as the appellant has failed to demonstrate any valid or sufficient cause for non-compliance.

On perusal of the impugned order in para 5.2.1, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and completely agree with the reasons recorded by the first appellate authority and it is justified. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25th April, 2025 at Chennai.