Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices. The penalty was for non-compliance with multiple notices issued during the assessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is deterrent in nature and not for revenue generation. It noted that the Assessing Officer has remedies like best judgment assessment. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- for one default, citing a similar case.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) can be imposed for multiple defaults, and if so, whether it should be restricted to one default amount.
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 144, 142(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhagvandas Hirachand Wachhani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, F-104, Silalekh Flats, Shahibaug, Delhi Ahmedabad-380004 Present Jurisdiction Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ACJPV5932F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.F. Jain, A.R. Respondent by: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR 24.02.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 O R D E R
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“(1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s. 272A(1)(d) without properly appreciating the facts of the assessee. (2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not considering the written submission dated 01.03.2023 in as much as that the submission made during the assessment proceedings giving full details has not been considered. (3) On the facts of the assessee the penalty levied after expiry of limitation period ought to have been deleted.
Bhagvandas Hirachand Wachhani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– (4) He has erred in law and facts in holding that the penalty has not become time barred. (5) On the facts no such penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s. 272A(1)(d) ought to have been levied. (6) The appellant craves, to leave, to add, to alter, and or modify any grounds of appeal
.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 9,09,100/- towards unexplained expenditure made by the assessee through his credit card. Further, the Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on account of default in compliance to the following notices issued by the Assessing Officer:
Sl. No. Notice Number of notice Date of notice 1 142(1) TBS/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1018714239(1) 09.10.2019 2 142(1) ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017439529(1) 19.08.2019 3 143(2) TBS/AST/S/143(2)/2018-19/1011295286(2) 14.08.2018 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- for each default.
The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A).
On going through the facts of the instant case, in our considered view in the interest of justice, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) may be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-. In our view, the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) are “deterrent in nature” and not for the purpose of earning revenue. The remedy available with the Assessing Officer lies in framing of best judgment assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, as he did in the present and not to impose multiple penalties under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, again and again. Accordingly, levy of penalty is directed to be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-. In the case of Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh vs. ITO Ward Gurdaspur 2023 (6) TMI 479 – ITAT Amritsar, while passing the order the ITAT made the following observations:
“The remedy available with the Assessing Officer lies in framing of best judgment assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, as he did and not to impose multiple penalties under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act again and again. We therefore restrict the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act to one default as against multiple defaults on non compliance with these notices under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty imposed is restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.”
Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, in the interest of justice, the penalty is directed to be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 8. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 25/02/2025