SYED GHIYASUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1130/Hyd/2024
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18)

Shri Syed Ghiyasuddin,
Hyderabad.
PAN:AWTPG7315F

Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-9(1), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)

(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate
रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 25/02/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 04/03/2025

आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Syed Ghiyasuddin (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated
30.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a government employee working as Sub-Inspector of Police. The case of the assessee for A.Y.
2017-18 was taken up for scrutiny and was completed u/s.144 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 30.09.2019. During the assessment proceedings, various notices were issued to the assessee to which the assessee could not respond. Consequently, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.272A
(1)(d) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs.10,000/- by order dated 26.07.2021. ITA No.1130/Hyd/2024 2

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) upheld the penalty and now the assessee is in appeal before us.
3. The Ld. AR submitted that, all the notices which were issued during the assessment proceedings to the assessee were served at address of Dabeerpura
Police Station. However, the assessee was got transferred from that Police
Station w.e.f. 19.10.2011 and all the said notices were served after 19.10.2011
only. Further, the assessee was not very acquainted to the electronic process of online proceedings, hence, he could not came to know about the issue of said notices. Accordingly, he could not responded to the said notices. The Ld.
AR further submitted that, default was neither wilful nor intention on the part of the assessee but was caused due to the reason out of the control of the assessee.
4. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below contending that the assessee failed to comply with the notices without any justifiable reason.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We found that, the said notices were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) were served at the old address of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR has submitted that, the assessee was not familiar with the online proceedings, hence he could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that, the assessee had a reasonable cause for the non-compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. AO.
The imposition of penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act, which requires wilful default, is therefore not justified in the present case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Ld. AO u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act.

ITA No.1130/Hyd/2024 3

Hyderabad.
Dated: 04.03.2025. * Reddy gp

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,