Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order confirming a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1) or 143(2) or 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, which dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine.
Held
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without establishing a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The Assessing Officer also failed to make a good case for the levy of the penalty.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was rightly confirmed when the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to explain non-compliance and no reasonable cause was established.
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 142(1), 143(2), 142(2A), 250, 273B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”), for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance. The grounds of appeal
of the assessee are as under: -
1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi has been wrong in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.10000/- imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070016573 (1) dated 29.10.2024 for non-compliance of notices U/s 142(1) or 143(2) or 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
1. 2. That the penalty of Rs.10000/imposed u/s 272A(1) (d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A), NFAC-Delhi is without considering the rea! facts of case and is unjustified and arbitrary.
3. That the penalty of Rs.10000/- imposed U/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unjustified and arbitrary as the penalty notice is without specifying the specific charge - default the committed by appellant U/s 142(1) or 143(2) or 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Page 2 of 3 4. That the penalty of Rs.10000/imposed U/s 272(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC-Delhi is bad in law, on facts and against the principles of natural justice.
That the appellant craves leave to amend any one or more of the grounds of appeal as Stated above as and when need of doing so arise during the course appellate Proceedings.” (2) The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs.10,000/- for failure of the assessee to comply with the notice dated 14.08.2019. In response to the show cause notice of the Assessing Officer dated 06.12.2019, requesting the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee submitted that the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order dated was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Assessing Officer did not keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance, and went ahead with the levy of the aforesaid penalty of Rs.10,000/; without giving any further opportunity to the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 29.10.2024, the aforesaid penalty was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.10.2024.
(2.1) At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to grounds of appeal and submitted that the penalty should be deleted. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).
(2.2) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. We find that the aforesaid penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, there is no material on Page 3 of 3 record to show that the penalty is without “reasonable cause” within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that neither the Assessing Officer has provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee, nor the Assessing Officer has himself brought materials on record to establish that the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice dated 14.08.2019 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, without “reasonable cause”. Further, on perusal of record, it is found in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the Assessing Officer has failed to make a good case for levy of the aforesaid penalty of Rs.10,000/-. In view of the foregoing, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2025.