Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee faced a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that her former Tax Practitioner used his own email and mobile number on the portal, leading to her unawareness of the notices. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty and did not condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the assessee's claim that her consultant provided his email without her knowledge. It was noted that the assessee must have provided login details to her consultant and could not now claim unawareness or lack of action against the consultant. Therefore, no sufficient cause was established for non-compliance, and the penalty order was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) to avoid penalty under Section 271(1)(b), and if the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty and not condoning the delay.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(b), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER BENCH : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 17.05.2024 for A.Y.2013-14 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; emanating from penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.1427/PUN/2024 (A)
“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in, not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and thereby confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b). The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that Assessee had discontinued her business of country liquor in earlier years. Assessee is not well-versed with the technology. The Assessee’s erstwhile Tax Practitioner had mentioned his Email Address and Mobile Number in the Login Portal. Therefore, all the notices had been to that Email Address, therefore, Assessee was not aware about the notices issued. Therefore, Assessee could not comply the notices. Hence, ld.AR pleaded that penalty may be dropped.
Submission of ld.DR: 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A).
Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that Assessing Officer had levied penalty under section (A)
271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 24.01.2022, 03.02.2022, 10.02.2022. It is an admitted position by the assessee that assessee had failed to comply the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Assessee’s only pleading is that the Assessee’s erstwhile Tax Consultant had provided his Email Address and Mobile Number on the Income Tax Portal instead of providing Assessee’s Email Id.
4.1 In this case, Assessee has not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that the Tax Consultant had provided his Email Id without the knowledge of the assessee. The Income Tax Account of the Individual Assessee cannot be accessed by any other person without getting the relevant details from the person. It means, Assessee herself had provided her login details to her Tax Consultant. Having done so, now she cannot plead that she was unaware. She has also not taken any steps against the said erring Tax Consultant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there was no sufficient cause for non-compliance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the penalty order passed by (A) the ld.Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2025.