GOPALBHAI CHELAJI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ायपीठ “बी“,अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
ी संजय गग, ाियक सद एवं
ी नरे !साद िस"ा, लेखा सद के सम%।
]
]
Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member
आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.1390/Ahd/2024, 1391/Ahd/2024 & 1392/Ahd/2024
िनधारण वष /Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively
Gopalbhai Chelaji Prajapati
A-401, Sarvopari Elegance
Opp.Satya Apartment
Akash Residency Cross Road
New Ranip
Ahmedabad – 382 470
बनाम/
v/s.
The ITO
Ward-2(1)(1)
Ahmedabad-380 015
थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AGAPP 3191 P
(अपीलाथ'/ Appellant)
(!( यथ'/ Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri P.F. Jain, AR
Revenue by :
Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee for different assessment years against the separate orders of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)] of even date
18/06/2024 agitating the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing
Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliances of the notices issued during the assessment proceedings.
ITA Nos.1390, 1391 & 1392/Ahd/2024
Gopalbhai Chelaji Prajapati vs,. ITO
Asst. Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively
At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to various documents placed in the paper-book to show that the notices issued by the AO were sent at old address of the assessee and, hence, the same were not received by the assessee resulting into ex-parte assessment orders of the AO passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel has further demonstrated that even the assessee was not served with the assessment orders. It has, therefore, been contended that the non- compliances of the notices issued during the assessment proceedings were not intentional, rather due to the aforesaid reasons.
The Ld.DR could not controvert the aforesaid factual position on the file.
Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that non- compliances of the notices by the assessee, in these cases, was not intentional, rather it was due to the fact that the assessee was not aware of the said notices issued by the AO. Therefore, in our view, these are not fit cases for levying penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. The impugned penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act in all these appeals is hereby set aside.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2025. ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Accountant Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 29/07/2025
टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
ITA Nos.1390, 1391 & 1392/Ahd/2024
Gopalbhai Chelaji Prajapati vs,. ITO
Asst. Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively
आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- (NFAC) 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , अिधकरण
अपीलीय
आयकर
,
अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. गाड फाईल /
Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
स&ािपत #ित ////
सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.