VANDANA ANIL BALADAHRE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " बी "न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE

BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं / ITA No.1521/PUN/2025
धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014

Vandana Anil Baladhare
Near Ramdeo Colony,
Fulchur, Gondia-441601
Maharashtra
PAN-AQZPB8058L
Vs ITO, Panvel
Appellant
Respondent

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha-
Addl. CIT
Date of hearing
: 21.08.2025
Date of pronouncement
: 01.09.2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 17.04.2025 which is arising out of order dated 08.12.2021 levying penalty u/s u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act by ITO NFAC, Delhi. 2. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the previous date of hearing fixed on 23.07.2025 assessee failed to appear. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and available records. 3. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. Ld. DR had relied on the finding of Ld. CIT(A). We note that during the course of assessment proceedings for 2 A.Y. 2013-14 carried out in the case of the present assessee who is an individual, assessee failed to respond to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.07.2021, 20.07.2021 & 02.08.2021. For this non compliance Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 271(1)(b) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.30,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- for each non compliance. In the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to succeed. 4. We observe that when the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on three occasions, the Country was facing the Covid-19 Pandemic and apart from restriction on movement various other problems were faced by the citizens of this Country. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Cognizance for extension of limitation, (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022” has extended the limitation period upto May, 2022. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the provisions of section 273B of the Act which provides that for the penalties referred in section 273B of the Act which includes the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable on the the assessee as if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. We find that the case of the present assessee falls under the provisions of section 273B of the Act as the assessee had reasonable cause for not responding to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. We are therefore of the considered view that no penalty should have been levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs. 30,000/- is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

3
5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 01st day of September, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 01st September, 2025. Neeta

आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "बी" बेंच,

पुणे / DR, ITAT, "B" Bench, Pune.
5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File.
आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.