VENKATESH DURAI YAMUNA, TRICHY,TRICHY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY, TRICHY
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2217/Chny/2024
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2015-16
Venkatesh Durai Yamuna,
No.34-B, Promendade Road,
Trichy-620 001. v.
The DCIT,
Circle-1(1),
Trichy.
[PAN: AAHPY 6197 K]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. P.M.Kathir, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl.CIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
20.11.2024
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
08.01.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 26.07.2024 for the Assessment Year
(hereinafter in short "AY”) 2015-16 confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”).
2. The brief facts are that assessment was framed by the AO accepting the returned income of Rs.1,33,43,420/- by order dated 24.05.2023. Venkatesh Durai Yamuna
:: 2 ::
Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty against the assessee u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for not responding to his two (2) notices dated 02.02.2023 &
dated 28.04.2023; and being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each default [total Rs.20,000/-], and the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty.
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee had in fact replied to the notices issued by the AO u/s.142(1) of the Act on 02.02.2023 & 28.04.2023 by replying on 10.04.2023 & 15.05.2023
respectively and in order to prove this fact, drew our attention to Page
No.4-9 of the Paper Book, which reveals that assessee has replied to the notice of the AO dated 02.02.2023, by reply dated 10.04.2023 a copy of which is found placed at Page Nos. 8 & 9 of the Paper Book wherein the e-proceedings response acknowledgment is found placed along with the reply at Page No.9 of the Paper Book. Likewise, the notice dated
28.04.2023 issued by the AO is found placed at Page Nos.10-13 of the Paper Book and the assessee’s reply is found placed at Page Nos.14-17 of the Paper Book. At Page No.14 e-proceedings response acknowledgment in respect of the notice dated 28.04.2023 uploaded by the assessee on 05.05.2023 is found placed along with the reply of the assessee at Page
Nos.16-17 of the Paper Book. In such a scenario, since the AO has charged the assessee for default in replying to his two (2) notices dated
Venkatesh Durai Yamuna
:: 3 ::
02.2023 & 28.04.2023 which we find assessee has answered/replied as noted supra albeit belatedly; and moreover, it is noted that ultimately the AO has accepted the return filed by the assessee while passing the assessment order dated 24.05.2023, and hence, we are of the opinion that the penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied of Rs.20,000/- [Rs.10,000/- for each default]. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 08th day of January, 2025, in Chennai. (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 08th January, 2025. TLN, Sr.PS
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
अपीलाथ/Appellant 2. थ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF