Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The penalty was imposed for three distinct instances of non-compliance, but the assessee argued that multiple notices seeking the same information should be treated as a single default.
Held
The Tribunal held that multiple notices seeking the same information constitute a single default. It confirmed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for the initial non-compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining Rs. 30,000/- levied for subsequent non-compliances, citing Section 273B of the Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether multiple notices issued by the Assessing Officer seeking the same information constitute a single default or multiple defaults for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire penalty of Rs. 40,000/- imposed for non-compliance.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(b), 142(1), 273B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is against the order dated 11.04.2025 of CIT(A)/NFAC, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Penalty Order dated 15.09.2023 passed u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.
The only issued raised in the instant appeal is whether the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs.40,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the submissions filed before the lower authorities and further submitted that where the notices have been issued by the ld. AO, one after the another, on three different occasions seeking the same information, it will not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default and therefore prayed for deletion of the penalty by virtue of various decisions passed by this Tribunal on this very issue.
On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that for non compliance to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued by ld. AO, the penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act @ Rs.10,000/- for each non-compliance has been imposed totalling to Rs.40,000/-. From perusal of the assessment order, we find that during the course of assessment proceedings on the initial occasion assessee did not submit the details but subsequently furnished part of the information vide reply dated 09.02.2023. It has also been claimed that assessee has been prevented for ‘reasonable cause’ for not appearing on the dates of hearing fixed by ld. AO. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that where the notices have been issued by the AO, one after the another, on three different occasions seeking the same information, it will not multiply the default and it would constitute a single default and the issue is no longer res integra by virtue of plethora of decisions passed by various Benches of this Tribunal. In light of the same and considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we are of the view that penalty for the first non- compliance deserves to be confirmed and for the subsequent non-compliance penalty deserves to be deleted. We therefore restrict the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against three defaults treated by the ld.AO. Accordingly, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and remaining penalty of Rs.30,000/- is hereby directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of October, 2025.