LATE HARPAL SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, NIRMAL SAINI,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 973/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 March 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO for non-compliance with notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, serving in the Indo Tibetan Border Police, filed an income tax return and later revised it, claiming a refund. The assessee failed to respond to notices issued by the AO during scrutiny assessment, leading to a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) and the initiation of proceedings under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the penalty imposed for non-compliance with notices was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(1)(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘SMC’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 05.03.2025Pronounced: 13.03.2025

O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 16.05.2023 passed for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. AO has erred in visiting the assessee under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. A.Y.2020-21 2

3.

It emerges out from the record that assessee is serving with Indo Tibetan Border Police. He has filed his Income Tax Return on 08.02.2020 declaring total income of Rs.24,35,360/-. However, subsequently he revised the return on 06.05.2021 and declared total income of Rs.13,92,710/-. The assessee has claimed refund of Rs.3,25,310/-. The assessee has received arrear of salary and he excluded that arrear of salary from taxable income.

1.

The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, however, assessee did not respond to number of notices issued by the AO and ld. AO has visited the assessee with penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) on account of non compliance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. He imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- for non compliance of these notices.

4.

The impugned order dated 27.09.2022 was challenged before the CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 172 days. This delay was not condoned by the CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was dismissed being time barred. A.Y.2020-21 3

5.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that assessee was serving in Indo Tibetan Border Police. He was out on the border and may not be in a position to lay his hand on IT Portal or remain in contact with his Tax Consultant.

Therefore, some delay has occurred and that very reason is attributed for non compliance of the notices before the AO.

Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal as well as we delete the penalty imposed by the AO for non compliance of notice under Section 143(2)/142(1).

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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 →