DEVRAJ VISHWASRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3, SATARA

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.