SANGEETA ARUN DESHMUKH,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1956/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 August 2022AY 2014-152 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 found that the lower authorities erred in levying the penalty. The assessment itself was based on unexplained investments and credits, and the assessee's auditor had appeared on a subsequent date.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice. The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment due to the assessee's failure to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for non-compliance under Section 271(1)(b) was justified when the assessee's auditor had appeared on a later date and the assessment was based on unexplained items.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Hearing: 18.08.2022Pronounced: 26.08.2022

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sangeeta Arun Deshmukh The Income Tax Officer -5 343/312, Indraprastha 531-A/2, 'Manjunath Manor' Gadkar Ali Vs. Opp. Science College Satara 415001 Sadar Bazar Satara 415001 PAN –AKHPD2857M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Respondent by: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, JM

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A) 4, Pune’s order dated 29.19.2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT (A)-4/Wd-5, Satra/437/ 2916017/217, involving proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned D.R. vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly penalised the assessee under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act thereby levying penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Mr. Jasnani invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s Section 144 assessment dated 02.12.2016 that since the assessee had not complied with Section 142(1) notice dated 06.09.2016 fixing the hearing on 14.09.2016, the impugned penalty very much deserves to be confirmed.

3.

All these Revenue’s arguments failed to evoke our concurrence as the foregoing assessment had made three-folded unexplained investments,

Sangeeta Arun Deshmuk unexplained credits and income form other sources involving varying sums only on the basis of the material placed on record at the assessee’s behest. The assessee’s auditor also appears to have put in appearance on 10.10.2016 as well. Face with this situation, we conclude that both the learned lower authorities had erred in levying the impugned Section 271(1)(b) non- cooperation penalty of Rs.10,000/- in the given facts and circumstances. The same is directed to be deleted.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →