Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Punjab Zoos Development Society, was levied a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1) during assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee defaulted in complying with notices, the penalty was levied for three identical, recurring defaults. The AO could have completed the assessment after the initial notice.
Key Issues
Whether penalty for non-compliance with multiple identical notices issued under Section 142(1) is justifiable for each default, or should it be restricted?
Sections Cited
143(3), 142(1), 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13-02-2025 confirming penalty of Rs.30,000/- as levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act vide order dated 06- 12-2021. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
An assessment has been framed against the assessee u/s 143(3) on 13-12-2019 wherein various notices issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on 24-09-2019, 15-11-2019 & 21-11-2019 were not responded to by the assessee. For non-compliances by the assessee, Ld. AO proposed impugned penalty on the assessee. The assessee assailed penalty on the ground that assessment order was subject matter of further appeal. However, on the issue of proposed penalty for non-compliance of notices, the assessee did not file any explanation. Accordingly, Ld AO levied impugned penalty of Rs.30,000/- for each of these defaults. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for the same very reasons. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The assessee, indeed, has defaulted in complying with identical notices as issued by Ld. AO u/s 142(1) on three different occasions. However, it could be seen that penalty has been levied for three identical defaults which are recurring in nature. The Ld. AO could have framed assessment immediately after serving initial notice only. Therefore, we restrict the impugned penalty to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only for first default. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.