Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Sub-Inspector of Police, failed to respond to notices issued during the assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) and levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000.
Held
The Tribunal found that the notices were served at the assessee's old address, and the assessee was unfamiliar with online proceedings. It was held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the penalty was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is justified when the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices due to transfer and unfamiliarity with online procedures.
Sections Cited
144, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
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.
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.
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) upheld the penalty and now the assessee is in appeal before us.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.