B U BHANDARI AUTO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 324/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 December 2022AY 2017-185 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought an extension for a notice under section 142(1), which was not explicitly rejected or granted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the assessment was completed accepting the returned income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is leviable for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) when the assessee sought an extension and the AO remained inactive, with no prejudice caused to the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Hearing: 20.12.2022Pronounced: 22.12.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the different assessees directed against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-12, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.04.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 respectively confirming the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned four appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in 2017-18 are stated herein. A.Y. 2017-18 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 20.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,13,19,470/-. The said return of income was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and, subsequently, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 was issued which was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 04.02.2019. Subsequently, on change of incumbent, another notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 05.09.2019. On receipt of the said notice, the appellant sought time to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) by letter dated 20.09.2019. The Assessing Officer had issued a show cause notice on 23.10.2019 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. However, the appellant also furnished the details called for on 04.11.2019. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty, as the appellant had failed to explain the reasons for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.

5.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

6.

We have carefully gone through the impugned orders and find that on receipt of notice u/s 142(1) dated 05.09.2019, the appellant sought time for 15 days to file the required details and the requisite details were filed on 04.11.2019. From the material on record, it appears that when the appellant sought time to file the details, the said application was not disposed of by the Assessing Officer either rejecting the said application or granting time. We also find that ultimately the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. Thus, it will conclusively prove that no prejudice was caused to the Assessing Officer on account of non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 05.09.2019 and inaction of the Assessing Officer on the adjournment petition moved by the assessee would also enable the appellant to believe that the time to comply with the extension of time as prayed was granted. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the appellant is guilty of contumacious conduct to comply with the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thus, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the ground of appeal

raised by the assessee in the present appeal stands allowed.

1.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in A.Y. 2017-18 stands allowed. 360 & 361/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 :

8. Since the facts and issues involved in all the above captioned four appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA

More judgments on Section 272A(1)(d)

All 1,125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →