ANJU SINGH,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI, HARDOI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 August 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and did not establish that the non-compliance was without reasonable cause. The AO passed a hasty order without making a good case for the penalty. Thus, the ITAT directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file her return of income for AY 2019-20. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 144, making an addition of Rs.11,34,000/- u/s 69A, and levied a penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 142(1) for non-compliance with notices was justified when the Assessing Officer failed to provide reasonable opportunity and establish lack of reasonable cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

2019-20 against impugned order dated 24/12/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071539565(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT” for short].

2.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and further notices u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time. Since no compliance was made, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 read with section 147/144B of the Act and passed order on 29/02/2024 determining total income of the assessee at Rs.11,34,000/- making addition of Rs.11,34,000/- on account of unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non compliance of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A) against imposition of penalty of Rs.30,000/-, who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3.

During the course of hearing in Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence of any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard and materials on record were perused. In this case the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to furnish requisite details. The assessee, vide letter dated 15/03/2024, requested for keeping the proceedings in abeyance. It was also submitted that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) is still pending for disposal and requested the learned Assessing Officer to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by learned CIT(A). However, the Assessing Officer rejected the plea of the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs.30,000/-. On perusal of records, it is found that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has failed to establish that the failure of the assessee to appear for hearing during assessment proceedings was without reasonable cause. The Assessing Officer has passed a hasty order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without making good case for levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 26/08/2025)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →