M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, noting that similar penalties for non-appearance in other assessment years had been deleted by the Tribunal. Following this precedent, the penalty was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee was levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance on three hearing dates during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, but the assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
The key issue was whether the penalty levied for non-appearance was justified, especially in light of previous ITAT decisions on similar defaults for the same assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA,VP The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 19.08.2016 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The issue raised in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Briefly in the facts of the case the assessment was completed in the case of the assessee u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s 274 of the Act were initiated for non-appearance on three dates of hearing. The assessee failed to furnish any information for non- compliance of notice and hence, penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed to the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act rejecting the plea of the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before us with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that similar penalty was levied for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2012-13 in assessee’s own case which has been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 07.01.2020. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) & 153C of the Act on similar dates and penalty can be cancelled on appeal also.
We find merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard. On the perusal of the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2010-11 & 2012-13 vide order dated 07.01.2020, we find that similar default of non-appearance has been noted by the Tribunal and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act has been cancelled in the respective years. Following the same parity of reasoning, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2020.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026