SHABIR HASHAM SAYYED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1216/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2022AY 2014-153 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 taxpayer's default in appearing was reasonable as it was for a single instance. The penalty was not sustainable in law and was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for non-cooperation with the Assessing Officer's notices. The penalty arose due to the taxpayer's failure to appear on a single instance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices is sustainable when the default is for a single instance and appears reasonable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)-7, Pune’s order dated 05-04-2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-7/Cir- 14/10669/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.

Both the parties heard. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing section 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, we find at the outset that the same had arisen on account of taxpayer’s non-co-operation to Assessing Officer section 143(2)/242(1) notices dated 01-06-2016. Mr. Walimbe could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the assessee’s impugned default appears to be reasonable only as he could not appear on a single instance. There is no further indication that the Assessing Officer did not frame section 143(3) assessment based on the corresponding details supplied. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the impugned penalty is not sustainable in law. The same stands deleted.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th day of July 2022.

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 →