MURUGAIYAPILLAI RAMDAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's age and the nascent stage of the transition to faceless assessment, along with the fact that notices were sent to the auditor's email. It concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-response to the notices, and consequently, deleted the penalty of Rs. 20,000 levied under Section 272A(1)(d).
What were the facts?
The assessee, a 71-year-old senior citizen, did not file a Return of Income for AY 2018-19. The assessment was reopened under Section 148, framed ex parte under Section 144, and a penalty of Rs. 20,000 was levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-response to notices under Section 142(1), which the assessee claimed were sent to his auditor's email and not his.
What were the issues?
Whether there was a reasonable cause for the senior citizen assessee's non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) during the transition to faceless assessment, thereby justifying the deletion of penalty under Section 272A(1)(d).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 144,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 25.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19.
The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the penalty of Rs.20,000/- levied by the AO u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”)
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is about ‘71’ years old and since, according to the assessee, he hadn’t any taxable income, he didn’t file return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19.
However, the JAO re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, after issuing Show cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act and after passing order u/s.148A(d) of the Act.
Thereafter, it is noted that the assessment got migrated to Faceless Assessment and later the assessment was framed u/s.144 (ex parte qua assessee).
Thereafter, the Faceless Assessing Officer [FAO] taking note that notices issued by him during the assessment proceedings didn’t evoke any response from the assessee, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. According to assessee, he wasn’t in the dark about the notices. According to the assessee, from enquiry he came to know that the notices were e-mailed to the Auditor’s e-mail ID mkauditor02@gmail.com and not to the assessee’s e-mail ID. Since the Auditor omitted to reply to the notices of the AO, the AO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act and alleged failure on his part to reply to notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 & 04.11.2022 and then, the AO levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each fault viz., total Rs.20,000/-.
Further, it was brought to our notice that penalty notices u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act were issued to the correct e-mail ID of the assessee’s son, dkrishnaa26@gmail.com which was received by the assessee and therefore, he fully participated in the penalty proceedings and still the AO levied the penalty. The main prayer of the assessee is that due to the fault of the Auditor, assessee shouldn’t be penalized.
We note that the assessee is a Sr. Citizen, aged 71 years old and notices u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 & 04.11.2022 were issued to his Auditor as noted supra, and in this context, we take judicial notice of the fact that these were the nascent years when the department changed its assessment from the physical mode towards the on-line/faceless assessment and the notices were being served upon the assessee not by post but through online/e-mail ID. Taking note that assessee is Sr. Citizen of 71 years old and since, Faceless Assessment Scheme has been introduced recently and since, he was not aware about the notices sent by e-mail to his Auditor, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for non-responding to the facts of the case, we are inclined to delete the penalty of Rs.20,000/-.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of April, 2025, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
